MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU82 on April 14, 2021, 07:44:48 AM
-
In the latest chapter in this never-ending American tragedy, the cop who killed the Black guy in a Minneapolis suburb -- even as Derek Chauvin is on trial just about 20 minutes away for last year's brutal murder of George Floyd -- apparently did so by accident.
This officer, Kimberly Potter, said she thought she had her Taser in her hand when she took direct aim at Daunte Wright's chest ... but it actually was her gun, and her single shot killed him instantly.
And in a twist that would be comical if it weren't so damn sad, Potter, a long-time veteran of the force, had been training young officers before she killed Wright. Chauvin also had been an experienced cop who trained young officers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/minnesota-officer-kim-potter-resigns.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20210414&instance_id=29210&nl=the-morning®i_id=108420427&segment_id=55537&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
BROOKLYN CENTER, Minn. — Officer Kimberly A. Potter was in the midst of a routine training day on Sunday, demonstrating her decades of policing know-how to less experienced officers in the Brooklyn Center Police Department.
But that training came to an abrupt and horrifying end when Officer Potter, who is white, shot Daunte Wright, a Black 20-year-old man, in his car as he tried to avoid arrest. Body camera video shows that the officer shouted “Taser!” while pointing a handgun at Mr. Wright, who was unarmed; she then fired a single round into his chest, killing him, in what the authorities in Minnesota have described as a deadly mistake.
With protests unfolding each night in Brooklyn Center, Officer Potter, a veteran officer of 26 years, and Tim Gannon, the department’s police chief, both resigned their posts on Tuesday. The abrupt departures came a day after the city manager who oversaw the department was fired, and as the city of 30,000 residents remained boarded up; National Guard troops stood with guns outside of the city’s police station, which has been the center of nightly clashes.
Outside of Officer Potter’s home in another Minneapolis suburb on Tuesday morning, police officers looked on as workers placed concrete barriers and black metal fencing all around the home, fortifying it in a fashion similar to the courthouse in downtown Minneapolis, where Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis officer who had trained younger officers, is on trial in the death of George Floyd.
Officer Potter, with her decades on the force, was acting as a training officer, assigned to guide less experienced colleagues on Sunday night, a spokeswoman for the police union that represents her said, when Mr. Wright was pulled over for an expired registration on his car.
-
There's so much to unpack here...
The best explanation for her:
She was carrying a chambered round, with the safety off, a gun that weighs about 3x what a taaer does, waving it around at the back of another polices head, and at the end of all of these mistakes didn't realize it was a gun. Remember that is the BEST explanation for her.
Here's another possible scenario:
She unholstered her gun, racked a bullet, took off the safety (that is completely different then a tasers) and still confused it for a taste.
Was she drunk?
-
The audio certainly makes it seem like it was a genuine accident. I mean shouted taser x3, & seemed genuinely stunned that she shot him.
That being said Unleash certainly has a point.
-
Yep, it's not a very reassuring thing when the best-case scenario is that an officer who routinely trains younger cops is so strikingly incompetent that she mistakes her gun for a Taser.
-
Taking as true the defense of "accident." Then the only plausible response is to assume that the police are simply not qualified to carry lethal weapons.
-
The whole thing is terrible, but maybe people should stop resisting arrest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, serious design flaw if the taser truly has the same feel in one's hand as the firearm.
-
The whole thing is terrible, but maybe people should stop resisting arrest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, serious design flaw if the taser truly has the same feel in one's hand as the firearm.
controversial opinion: I don't think that capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for resisting arrest.
-
The whole thing is terrible, but maybe people should stop resisting arrest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, serious design flaw if the taser truly has the same feel in one's hand as the firearm.
Resisting arrest is not punishable by death. Well, as long as you are not an unarmed black man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Taking as true the defense of "accident." Then the only plausible response is to assume that the police are simply not qualified to carry lethal weapons.
Indeed, if the threshold for errors is zero, then you are correct.
26 year veteran, taken hundreds of hours of training, and is a trainer herself.
And then there's the inevitable comparison to pilots, that they cannot have an error rate either. But scores of planes have crashed due to pilot error, and scores more will occur in the future.
Add society's desire for the enforcement of laws, a hundred million+ guns and a growing lack of trust in (all) institutions and .. it's a toxic soup that will have bad outcomes due to the inevitability of statistics.
It is an iron-clad lock that some time in the next year, and the year following, and on, this event will re-occur.
-
Maybe only certain police should carry legit guns, give the majority non lethal rounds? I know that those can still kill if they hit you in the right place but this may help stop the majority of these instances.
Or standard belt has non lethal rounds and if they find themselves in a fire fight you have a lethal clip in the car?
-
OK, I'm a big believe in due process for the officer. I find the whole thing abhorrent that anyone would shoot and kill an unarmed civilian, regardless of race, for any reason. But accident or not, the officer deserves the same due process we all expect.
The question is whether the officer was ill-trained, ill-prepared or just simply not capable of being a police officer. It's possible she might be racist but it's certainly not guaranteed.
One of the big problems I keep saying is, "What do you want your police to do?" For most reasonably middle class or affluent suburbs, police are municipal revenue officers (aka, traffic officers) and night watchmen. When a more significant criminal incident comes down (including executing a warrant), they are babes in the woods. I keep thinking back to the Brown's Chicken massacre in Palatine, IL, in the 1980s. Had the assailants just kept their mouth shut, the crime never would have been solved. Ever. The big reason was the cops were amateurish at what they were doing. Thank God someone had the good sense to preserve evidence with DNA on it.
The point: No accidental death is EVER justified by police officers. Ever. They should be better trained and better equipped to deal with folks from different social and ethnic backgrounds. Most simply aren't. That comes from the question of what you expect of your police.
-
OK, I'm a big believe in due process for the officer. I find the whole thing abhorrent that anyone would shoot and kill an unarmed civilian, regardless of race, for any reason. But accident or not, the officer deserves the same due process we all expect.
The question is whether the officer was ill-trained, ill-prepared or just simply not capable of being a police officer. It's possible she might be racist but it's certainly not guaranteed.
One of the big problems I keep saying is, "What do you want your police to do?" For most reasonably middle class or affluent suburbs, police are municipal revenue officers (aka, traffic officers) and night watchmen. When a more significant criminal incident comes down (including executing a warrant), they are babes in the woods. I keep thinking back to the Brown's Chicken massacre in Palatine, IL, in the 1980s. Had the assailants just kept their mouth shut, the crime never would have been solved. Ever. The big reason was the cops were amateurish at what they were doing. Thank God someone had the good sense to preserve evidence with DNA on it.
The point: No accidental death is EVER justified by police officers. Ever. They should be better trained and better equipped to deal with folks from different social and ethnic backgrounds. Most simply aren't. That comes from the question of what you expect of your police.
I feel like most would probably say not kill people for stupid reasons or beat the crap out of people for stupid reasons (ie the second lieutenant thing that happened over in Virginia)
-
Agree with most points by 'topper and dgies. Re two points:
"Due process": Sure, but there is no due process in the court of public opinion. And where was Wright's due process and Floyd's due process before they were sentenced to death?
"Mistakes happen": Yessir, always have and always will. Mistakenly thinking that an unarmed suspect reached for a weapon is bad enough but often can be explained away; mistakenly thinking your gun is a Taser, that's a lot more difficult one to accept IMHO. Good point about pilots, though. It sucks, but it's a fact of life (and death). Thankfully, for the vast majority of us, the kind of mistakes we make aren't so devastating.
-
I don't really care if the police officer is racist or not. She *allegedly* thought her gun was her taser. A police officer thought her GUN was a TASER. And now an unarmed person (a criminal, for those who want to claim the guy had it coming because he wasn't a perfect citizen) is dead because of it.
Adios to her career. Well, should be, anyway. But we've seen this play out before.
-
A terrible situation that I really believe was an accident but why are officers pulling weapons for an outstanding warrant? They knew who he was at that point and if he drove off they should have been able to locate him later. I think those types of situations need revised procedures.
-
A terrible situation that I really believe was an accident but why are officers pulling weapons for an outstanding warrant? They knew who he was at that point and if he drove off they should have been able to locate him later. I think those types of situations need revised procedures.
Exactly. Unless he's an immediate threat to somebody's well being, let him rack up the charges he'll face.
-
I don't really care if the police officer is racist or not. She *allegedly* thought her gun was her taser. A police officer thought her GUN was a TASER. And now an unarmed person (a criminal, for those who want to claim the guy had it coming because he wasn't a perfect citizen) is dead because of it.
Adios to her career. Well, should be, anyway. But we've seen this play out before.
Two justice systems exist. Justice for cops, and justice for non-cops.
She says adios to her career, but if any non-cop had a little classic "oopsiedoops I shot a guy dead but totes by accident" incident, they'd be in cuffs and facing a negligent homicide charge (manslaughter, depending on what your jurisdiction calls it).
-
Two justice systems exist. Justice for cops, and justice for non-cops.
She says adios to her career, but if any non-cop had a little classic "oopsiedoops I shot a guy dead but totes by accident" incident, they'd be in cuffs and facing a negligent homicide charge (manslaughter, depending on what your jurisdiction calls it).
Yup, very true.
-
Two justice systems exist. Justice for cops, and justice for non-cops.
She says adios to her career, but if any non-cop had a little classic "oopsiedoops I shot a guy dead but totes by accident" incident, they'd be in cuffs and facing a negligent homicide charge (manslaughter, depending on what your jurisdiction calls it).
Complete correct. But society didn't ask you to enforce the law and be empowered to carry a lethal weapon in furtherance of that request.
-
Complete correct. But society didn't ask you to enforce the law and be empowered to carry a lethal weapon in furtherance of that request.
But there is this whole equality under the law fantasy that we operate under. Laws prohibiting negligent homicide ought to apply to heirs to political dynasties in Massachusetts, to idiots using explosives for gender reveal parties, and to officers of the law alike. So long as police officers are insulated from the consequences of their decisions (be it by QI or by evading criminal prosecution), this will never change because there is no incentive for it to change.
-
Resisting arrest is not punishable by death. Well, as long as you are not an unarmed black man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I agree with you.
-
One of the big problems I keep saying is, "What do you want your police to do?" For most reasonably middle class or affluent suburbs, police are municipal revenue officers (aka, traffic officers) and night watchmen. When a more significant criminal incident comes down (including executing a warrant), they are babes in the woods. I keep thinking back to the Brown's Chicken massacre in Palatine, IL, in the 1980s. Had the assailants just kept their mouth shut, the crime never would have been solved. Ever. The big reason was the cops were amateurish at what they were doing. Thank God someone had the good sense to preserve evidence with DNA on it.
The point: No accidental death is EVER justified by police officers. Ever. They should be better trained and better equipped to deal with folks from different social and ethnic backgrounds. Most simply aren't. That comes from the question of what you expect of your police.
This is so spot on. My hometown is an affluent suburb. In the early 80s, there was a domestic dispute and a man took his wife and child hostage. During the negotiation, the police chief at the time swapped himself for the family and got into the parked car with the aggressor. He disarmed the suspect and began to exit the vehicle with his hands up...one of his officers shot and killed him as he exited the vehicle.
25 years later, a white kid I went to HS with got pulled over cause he had been reported to be stealing gas from a gas station. During the stop it got heated, he was arrested, was fighting with the cops, and they put an gas mask, meant to help in chemical attacks, on him cause he kept spitting...but they had no clue what he was doing and he ended up suffocating in the car.
Neither situation was racial in nature, but rather suburban cops who had no clue what to do in any escalating situation.
-
Trigger warning:
If you truly believe that death - accidental or otherwise - is a justified outcome of an unarmed citizen - who is not posing any immediate danger to the officer, themselves or others - not following directions of a police officer, I think you're unnatural carnal knowledgeing nuts.
-
Guess I was pessimistic. Headline says the officer will be charged with manslaughter.
-
this was a terrible mistake...all lives matter and have a right to due process
approximately 100 cops have been killed on duty so far this year
-
this was a terrible mistake...all lives matter and have a right to due process
approximately 100 cops have been killed on duty so far this year
Your last paragraph is irrelevant to this discussion.
-
Resisting arrest is not punishable by death. Well, as long as you are not an unarmed black man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
how many "unarmed black men" have actually been shot and killed by cops across this country? How many individuals of other races have been?
Though I'm sure looting liquor stores, Dollar Tree, and Foot Locker will bring him back and get the founders of BLM a fifth home.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5
-
this was a terrible mistake...all lives matter and have a right to due process
approximately 100 cops have been killed on duty so far this year
WRT this present instance, it appears that between Potter and Wright only one will end up the beneficiary of that right to due process.
-
https://www.odmp.org/search/year
97. 51 via COVID. 1 during the insurrection.
-
how many "unarmed black men" have actually been shot and killed by cops across this country? How many individuals of other races have been?
Though I'm sure looting liquor stores, Dollar Tree, and Foot Locker will bring him back and get the founders of BLM a fifth home.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5
I stand corrected. Daunte Wright deserved to be shot to death. Thank you for putting me in the correct frame of mind.
-
Death should never be an option for this situation. It looks like it was clearly an accident, but I'd contend the cops F-d up also by (a) not removing the keys from the ignition, and (b) not closing the door to the car as they were trying to cuff Wright. I'm thinking the outcome would have been avoided had the cops done (a) or (b).
The cop will, and should, get jail time. But can someone post the evidence that makes it a racial killing?
-
The officer is being charged with 2nd degree manslaughter. It has a maximum punishment of 10 years in prison.
-
Death should never be an option for this situation. It looks like it was clearly an accident, but I'd contend the cops F-d up also by (a) not removing the keys from the ignition, and (b) not closing the door to the car as they were trying to cuff Wright. I'm thinking the outcome would have been avoided had the cops done (a) or (b).
The cop will, and should, get jail time. But can someone post the evidence that makes it a racial killing?
Maybe not racially motivated, but would the steps have been the same that led up to it if it were a white driver? I have no idea, but that’s where I could see race coming into it.
After the Jacob Blake incident, the officers mentioned how important it was to make sure he didn’t take the car and start a chase. Maybe that’s what led to the heightened response here, but like you said, there may have been other ways to accomplish this.
-
The cop will, and should, get jail time. But can someone post the evidence that makes it a racial killing?
I think the argument there is that police - and this is backed up with data - are much more likely to reach for a weapon and use force (specifically deadly force) against black men than others.
Case in point, yesterday in the Chicago suburb Morton Grove, a white man wanted on a warrant for a violent felony held police at bay for 16 hours in a barricade situation. During the standoff, this man pointed a shotgun out a window at police several times and threatened to kill officers. Police did not shoot at him. They didn't bring in a sniper to take him out. They did not attempt to use force against him in any way. They negotiated with him for 16 hours until he surrendered.
Compare that to Daunte Wright. He wasn't armed. He didn't threaten anyone.
The question is, why is an unarmed black man wanted for a warrant shot to death but a white man pointing a gun at cops and threatening to kill them treated with kid gloves?
This is just once case, but you see it over and over again. White mass shooters like Dylan Roof, Robert Long and Patrick Crusius somehow get to surrender peacefully, but if you're black and resist there's a chance you end up dead. Why?
-
Maybe not racially motivated, but would the steps have been the same that led up to it if it were a white driver? I have no idea, but that’s where I could see race coming into it.
After the Jacob Blake incident, the officers mentioned how important it was to make sure he didn’t take the car and start a chase. Maybe that’s what led to the heightened response here, but like you said, there may have been other ways to accomplish this.
I think black, white or any other color the driver happened to be, once the cops learn of an outstanding warrant for aggravated armed robbery, and the driver resists the arrest, it's going to become "heightened". And again, death should never be an option regardless of the resistance when the driver is unarmed, but it doesn't become heightened unless there's resistance does it?
I think the argument there is that police - and this is backed up with data - are much more likely to reach for a weapon and use force (specifically deadly force) against black men than others.
Case in point, yesterday in the Chicago suburb Morton Grove, a white man wanted on a warrant for a violent felony held police at bay for 16 hours in a barricade situation. During the standoff, this man pointed a shotgun out a window at police several times and threatened to kill officers. Police did not shoot at him. They didn't bring in a sniper to take him out. They did not attempt to use force against him in any way. They negotiated with him for 16 hours until he surrendered.
Compare that to Daunte Wright. He wasn't armed. He didn't threaten anyone.
The question is, why is an unarmed black man wanted for a warrant shot to death but a white man pointing a gun at cops and threatening to kill them treated with kid gloves?
It raises a question, but maybe the Chicago police officer is better trained than the Brooklyn Center officer? Is there anything other than speculation that this particular officer was racist and shot Wright because of his race?
-
This will follow a legal path to a previous similar situations in California where guns were employed rather than Tasers. Some of those cases were deemed 'voluntary' as officers purposefully reached for their sidearm. This, seemingly representing an error as evident from the audio, likely results in an involuntary manslaughter conviction and jail time. That said, the victim (and I do mean victim) put himself at great risk when he chose to flee. Mistrust of police, even if justified, is not a license to act rashly and dangerously, especially with tensions so high. Most cops just want to go home to their families at the end of the day. I have no doubt that's exactly what Officer Potter wanted. Mr. Wright would have been wise to allow that to happen. Both would be infinitely better off today.
I would never be a cop today. Absolute no win situation ever. The sad thing is that crime in underprivileged communities will continue to soar as departments stand down and law abiding Americans who desperately need police support will suffer terribly.
-
The whole thing is terrible, but maybe people should stop resisting arrest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, serious design flaw if the taser truly has the same feel in one's hand as the firearm.
Or maybe cops should stop harassing people of a certain color. Watch the video of the military guy in Virginia if you can't understand what I am saying.
Or maybe make police LIVE in the city in which they are officers so they have a stake and a presence there. As it is they are little more than shakedown artists from white communities who stop blacks to raise money.
-
It raises a question, but maybe the Chicago police officer is better trained than the Brooklyn Center officer? Is there anything other than speculation that this particular officer was racist and shot Wright because of his race?
This is how people fail to see the forest through the trees, often because deep down they want to pretend the forest doesn't exist.
I'm not suggesting this officer was racist, at least not consciously, or shot Wright because of his race. And that doesn't matter and isn't the issue here.
The problem isn't that there's an abundance of openly racist cops who go out of their way to mistreat people of color. Rather, the problem is that there's a law enforcement culture in this country that says people of color - specifically black men - are more dangerous than others, and are deserving of added scrutiny and need to be treated more harshly.
It's why a white man can point a shotgun at cops and draw no response, but a black man who tries to flee cops gets shot.
It's why Philandro Castile can be shot to death for lawfully possessing a gun in his car, but Kyle Rittehouse can stroll down the street with an AR-15 after killing two people and cops don't bat an eye.
It's a problem with the culture of law enforcement, not individual cops.
-
Just because the board moron says 100 cops have been killed this year does not make it a fact. It just makes him a liar.
28 does not equal 100.
-
I stand corrected. Daunte Wright deserved to be shot to death. Thank you for putting me in the correct frame of mind.
still have that racist and provocative name i see
-
Just because the board moron says 100 cops have been killed this year does not make it a fact. It just makes him a liar.
28 does not equal 100.
seriously? i hope you never need a cop dude! liar? i wish i was lying little man
https://www.odmp.org/search/year
-
still have that racist and provocative name i see
Not sure you know what racism means. Which isn't surprising.
-
still have that racist and provocative name i see
A Very Serious Man has entered the chat.
-
Just because the board moron says 100 cops have been killed this year does not make it a fact. It just makes him a liar.
28 does not equal 100.
To be more clear, 97 cops have had what's been deemed a line-of-duty death this year.
51 of them died because of COVID-19
15 died from gunfire
8 died in a vehicle crash
7 died of vehicular assault
6 were struck by a vehicle accidentally
4 died of assault
2 were stabbed
2 suffered heart attacks
1 died of 9/11-related illness
1 died from duty-related illness
-
I count 28 killed intentionally by others. So far. And one of those was during the insurrection. Death by assault with fire extinguisher.
-
In honesty though one thing that strikes me as counterproductive is the Omerta-esque policy of solidarity among officers and civilians who reflexively defend officers regardless of the situation.
Like, it's okay for *Some* officers to be bad or *some* shootings to be bad. But with the thin-blue-line us-vs-them attitude that has so pervasively infected both police forces and their supporters we get situations like this where I struggle to see a justification where "I thought I had my taser but I had my service sidearm." She was bad at a very important aspect of her job and someone is dead because of that. What is there to gain by declaring zero-sum war on this particular case?
Honestly, Rocket and others that are inclined to leap into this fray, why this particular cop and this particular incident?
Have we learned nothing from institutions hiding malfeasors in their ranks from... oh... literally any organization who has done so with famous consequences?
-
There were 18 days total last year where police officers did not kill American citizens.
-
In honesty though one thing that strikes me as counterproductive is the Omerta-esque policy of solidarity among officers and civilians who reflexively defend officers regardless of the situation.
Like, it's okay for *Some* officers to be bad or *some* shootings to be bad. But with the thin-blue-line us-vs-them attitude that has so pervasively infected both police forces and their supporters we get situations like this where I struggle to see a justification where "I thought I had my taser but I had my service sidearm." She was bad at a very important aspect of her job and someone is dead because of that. What is there to gain by declaring zero-sum war on this particular case?
Honestly, Rocket and others that are inclined to leap into this fray, why this particular cop and this particular incident?
Have we learned nothing from institutions hiding malfeasors in their ranks from... oh... literally any organization who has done so with famous consequences?
i do not defend those who are indefensible. there are going to be bad cops as much as there are going to be bad dentists, teachers, firemen, etc etc what makes me very uncomfortable is the ease with which others (jockstrap) are quick to "reimagine" our law enforcement. i will be the first to admit that the cop "brotherhood" has historically been stretched a little too far and that is one of the reasons we have this mess. police need to police each other better as their jobs would, in the long run. be much easier. we have a lot of healing to do, but the left's way to do it is imho way too far
-
i do not defend those who are indefensible. there are going to be bad cops as much as there are going to be bad dentists, teachers, firemen, etc etc what makes me very uncomfortable is the ease with which others (jockstrap) are quick to "reimagine" our law enforcement. i will be the first to admit that the cop "brotherhood" has historically been stretched a little too far and that is one of the reasons we have this mess. police need to police each other better as their jobs would, in the long run. be much easier. we have a lot of healing to do, but the left's way to do it is imho way too far
I'm not confident that you can even explain the 'left's way'. Please elaborate what you think the plan is.
-
FWIW...the MN statutory definition of second degree manslaughter that relates to this case:
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205
Sure seems like she "negligently created an unreasonable risk" (by accidentally grabbing her gun instead of her taser) and "consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm" (by willfully firing what she thought was a taser).
-
this was a terrible mistake...all lives matter and have a right to due process
approximately 100 cops have been killed on duty so far this year
And all 100 were tragedies. And all of those who committed murder, or aided and abetted it, should be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
As should cops who kill unarmed people that posed no imminent threat.
See how easy that is, rocket?
-
This will follow a legal path to a previous similar situations in California where guns were employed rather than Tasers. Some of those cases were deemed 'voluntary' as officers purposefully reached for their sidearm. This, seemingly representing an error as evident from the audio, likely results in an involuntary manslaughter conviction and jail time. That said, the victim (and I do mean victim) put himself at great risk when he chose to flee. Mistrust of police, even if justified, is not a license to act rashly and dangerously, especially with tensions so high. Most cops just want to go home to their families at the end of the day. I have no doubt that's exactly what Officer Potter wanted. Mr. Wright would have been wise to allow that to happen. Both would be infinitely better off today.
I would never be a cop today. Absolute no win situation ever. The sad thing is that crime in underprivileged communities will continue to soar as departments stand down and law abiding Americans who desperately need police support will suffer terribly.
What we know is this officer acted "rashly and dangerously." According to her Minnesota statute charges, the officer created an unreasonable risk, consciously taking chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.
It's not okay to shoot someone who is not a threat with a gun or taser. ...(all of this over expired tags and a gross misdemeanor warrant.)
-
What we know is this officer acted "rashly and dangerously." According to her Minnesota statute charges, the officer created an unreasonable risk, consciously taking chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.
It's not okay to shoot someone who is not a threat with a gun or taser. ...(all of this over expired tags and a gross misdemeanor warrant.)
This is the problem. Do we need to arrest people in our society for something as ridiculous as this? The ENTIRE confrontation could have been avoided.
-
The sad thing is that crime in underprivileged communities will continue to soar as departments stand down and law abiding Americans who desperately need police support will suffer terribly.
One solution would be to take pour $ into those underprivileged communities - increase jobs, improve housing, improve education, etc. etc. Those actions would actually prevent crime
-
That said, the victim (and I do mean victim) put himself at great risk when he chose to flee. Mistrust of police, even if justified, is not a license to act rashly and dangerously, especially with tensions so high. Most cops just want to go home to their families at the end of the day. I have no doubt that's exactly what Officer Potter wanted. Mr. Wright would have been wise to allow that to happen. Both would be infinitely better off today.
This is some pretty awful victim blaming here. Mr. Wright did absolutely nothing to prevent Officer Potter from going home to her family at the end of the day. It was her decision to use force against an unarmed and non-threatening individual, and it was her incompetence (at best) that led her to shoot him to death.
It's literally a violation of the Constitution (see Tennessee v. Garner) to use deadly force in this situation.
The sad thing is that crime in underprivileged communities will continue to soar as departments stand down and law abiding Americans who desperately need police support will suffer terribly.
More victim blaming.
"You see, underprivileged people, if you didn't complain so much about the police misconduct, cops would be around more often."
The suggestion that these communities need to accept poor policing in order to get any policing is gross.
-
This is some pretty awful victim blaming here. Mr. Wright did absolutely nothing to prevent Officer Potter from going home to her family at the end of the day. It was her decision to use force against an unarmed and non-threatening individual, and it was her incompetence (at best) that led her to shoot him to death.
It's literally a violation of the Constitution (see Tennessee v. Garner) to use deadly force in this situation.
More victim blaming.
"You see, underprivileged people, if you didn't complain so much about the police misconduct, cops would be around more often."
The suggestion that these communities need to accept poor policing in order to get any policing is gross.
We disagree. I'll leave it at that.
-
WRT this present instance, it appears that between Potter and Wright only one will end up the beneficiary of that right to due process.
Brother jFlicke
I agree with you. But two wrongs do not make a right.
We owe it to ourselves to ensure due process. While we're at it, let's take a close look at police procedures and training so we get it right. Each time. Every time.
-
One solution would be to take pour $ into those underprivileged communities - increase jobs, improve housing, improve education, etc. etc. Those actions would actually prevent crime
Absolutely agree.
Jack Kemp had the right idea -- urban enterprise zones ("UEZs"). The program had tax abatement and incentives to create economic investment, jobs and opportunity in the poorest zip codes in America. The program was so badly watered down that the zip code 90210 somehow qualified as an UEZ. The other problem is making jobs net new jobs and not simply moving from one tossed-together facility to another.
Put some wraps around it and focus on America's poorest neighborhoods and something might get done.
In the meantime, it might be nice to look at our schools and wonder what's going wrong? I have some strong ideas, but I'm not a professional educator.
-
No protests, no riots, no looting, no calls for justice, black bystander celebrates as cop pumps 12 rounds into white perpetrator and of course no national press coverage and outrage. Just a cop doing his job.
https://en-volve.com/2021/02/09/thats-the-sht-i-like-to-see-blm-supporter-celebrates-as-he-films-cop-shoot-white-guy-12-times-graphic-video/
-
Absolutely agree.
Jack Kemp had the right idea -- urban enterprise zones ("UEZs"). The program had tax abatement and incentives to create economic investment, jobs and opportunity in the poorest zip codes in America. The program was so badly watered down that the zip code 90210 somehow qualified as an UEZ. The other problem is making jobs net new jobs and not simply moving from one tossed-together facility to another.
Put some wraps around it and focus on America's poorest neighborhoods and something might get done.
In the meantime, it might be nice to look at our schools and wonder what's going wrong? I have some strong ideas, but I'm not a professional educator.
Pretty hard for kids to learn if we continue to destroy their home lives.
-
No protests, no riots, no looting, no calls for justice, black bystander celebrates as cop pumps 12 rounds into white perpetrator and of course no national press coverage and outrage. Just a cop doing his job.
https://en-volve.com/2021/02/09/thats-the-sht-i-like-to-see-blm-supporter-celebrates-as-he-films-cop-shoot-white-guy-12-times-graphic-video/
Just stop. You don't understand, and clearly won't try to understand in good faith.
-
seriously? i hope you never need a cop dude! liar? i wish i was lying little man
https://www.odmp.org/search/year
As I said, you are a liar. Your own link shows that.
-
No protests, no riots, no looting, no calls for justice, black bystander celebrates as cop pumps 12 rounds into white perpetrator and of course no national press coverage and outrage. Just a cop doing his job.
https://en-volve.com/2021/02/09/thats-the-sht-i-like-to-see-blm-supporter-celebrates-as-he-films-cop-shoot-white-guy-12-times-graphic-video/
How is this even comparable? The guy who was shot here was beating the cop with a piece of wood.
By the way, if this is where you get your news, it certainly explains a lot.
Other headlines:
"BOMBSHELL: ‘Voter Fraud Expert’ Says He Was Bribed $10 MILLION To Stay Quiet About 2020"
"Former Pfizer VP Sounds Alarm: COVID-19 Vaccine Campaign “Madness” That May Be Used For “Massive-Scale Depopulation”"
-
How is this even comparable? The guy who was shot here was beating the cop with a piece of wood.
By the way, if this is where you get your news, it certainly explains a lot.
Other headlines:
"BOMBSHELL: ‘Voter Fraud Expert’ Says He Was Bribed $10 MILLION To Stay Quiet About 2020"
"Former Pfizer VP Sounds Alarm: COVID-19 Vaccine Campaign “Madness” That May Be Used For “Massive-Scale Depopulation”"
I just don't see the issues with the mentioned stories. Clearly they're breaking news the MSM won't!
-
No protests, no riots, no looting, no calls for justice, black bystander celebrates as cop pumps 12 rounds into white perpetrator and of course no national press coverage and outrage. Just a cop doing his job.
https://en-volve.com/2021/02/09/thats-the-sht-i-like-to-see-blm-supporter-celebrates-as-he-films-cop-shoot-white-guy-12-times-graphic-video/
Ridiculous, as usual.
-
How is this even comparable? The guy who was shot here was beating the cop with a piece of wood.
By the way, if this is where you get your news, it certainly explains a lot.
Other headlines:
"BOMBSHELL: ‘Voter Fraud Expert’ Says He Was Bribed $10 MILLION To Stay Quiet About 2020"
"Former Pfizer VP Sounds Alarm: COVID-19 Vaccine Campaign “Madness” That May Be Used For “Massive-Scale Depopulation”"
Absolutely depressing when people fall down these rabbit holes and can't see their way out of them.
-
Absolutely depressing when people fall down these rabbit holes and can't see their way out of them.
I don't disagree. But it's also depressing that this incident is immediately seen as a result of racism rather than because the officer F-d up, with no proof of racism. It may be that the officer was a complete racist. But perhaps that issue should play out before the immediate cry of "racist cop".
-
I don't disagree. But it's also depressing that this incident is immediately seen as a result of racism rather than because the officer F-d up, with no proof of racism. It may be that the officer was a complete racist. But perhaps that issue should play out before the immediate cry of "racist cop".
Daunte Wright was absolutely pulled over because he was black. That is a product of a racist police system.
Do I think that the officer who fired the shot killed him because she is racist? No. It was an accident. But she is an officer of the law and should be held to the highest standard. Accidentally killing someone is still killing someone. Which is why there is a manslaughter charge. But the underlying reason for his death was the systemic racism of the criminal justice system. This is an open and shut case of over policing. He was pulled over for an expired plate and an air freshener hanging from his mirror. Aka driving while Black. It was an excuse to search him and his vehicle, and it escalated for no reason. And now the man is dead.
-
Daunte Wright was absolutely pulled over because he was black. That is a product of a racist police system.
Do I think that the officer who fired the shot killed him because she is racist? No. It was an accident. But she is an officer of the law and should be held to the highest standard. Accidentally killing someone is still killing someone. Which is why there is a manslaughter charge. But the underlying reason for his death was the systemic racism of the criminal justice system. This is an open and shut case of over policing. He was pulled over for an expired plate and an air freshener hanging from his mirror. Aka driving while Black. It was an excuse to search him and his vehicle, and it escalated for no reason. And now the man is dead.
You get it.
The cop doesn't need to be wearing a white hood or screaming the 'N' word for this to be a result of racism.
-
You get it.
The cop doesn't need to be wearing a white hood or screaming the 'N' word for this to be a result of racism.
I think this is a useful distinction. It's not necessarily that the officer was acting with malicious racism aforethought, but the chain of events that led to the circumstance where her negligent discharge took Wright's life was inherently affected by racism.
-
I think this is a useful distinction. It's not necessarily that the officer was acting with malicious racism aforethought, but the chain of events that led to the circumstance where her negligent discharge took Wright's life was inherently affected by racism.
It’s an interesting distinction and one that gets muddled a lot lately. Which doesn’t help things. Just as one should not be able to excuse away furthering or complicity in things that are based in systemic racism by saying they weren’t being purposefully racist, those same people shouldn’t be slathered with the same brush as malicious and aggressive racists committing hate crimes. There is nuance that is lost by a ton of people across the board, which is truly unfortunate
-
Daunte Wright was absolutely pulled over because he was black. That is a product of a racist police system.
Do I think that the officer who fired the shot killed him because she is racist? No. It was an accident. But she is an officer of the law and should be held to the highest standard. Accidentally killing someone is still killing someone. Which is why there is a manslaughter charge. But the underlying reason for his death was the systemic racism of the criminal justice system. This is an open and shut case of over policing. He was pulled over for an expired plate and an air freshener hanging from his mirror. Aka driving while Black. It was an excuse to search him and his vehicle, and it escalated for no reason. And now the man is dead.
I couldn't agree more about the officer being held to the highest standard. I couldn't agree more that Wright should not have been shot and that death should never be an outcome in this situation. I couldn't agree more that the officer will and should face charges for manslaughter.
I've been pulled over for having expired plates. Using your logic, there was no reason for me to have been pulled over though because I'm not black. I got ticketed. I showed up in court and got it dismissed. Wright could have done the same (maybe not the dismissal part-I'm a lawyer). And once again, I agree that Wright's death is not acceptable! But everything doesn't always have to be a race issue. Someone can just plain F up.
-
As I said, you are a liar. Your own link shows that.
yo jackwagon-the link says "honoring officers KILLED in 2021" !!!
total LINE OF DUTY DEATHS- 97
what are you? Baghdad bob? and that was putting it politely
-
I couldn't agree more about the officer being held to the highest standard. I couldn't agree more that Wright should not have been shot and that death should never be an outcome in this situation. I couldn't agree more that the officer will and should face charges for manslaughter.
I've been pulled over for having expired plates. Using your logic, there was no reason for me to have been pulled over though because I'm not black. I got ticketed. I showed up in court and got it dismissed. Wright could have done the same (maybe not the dismissal part-I'm a lawyer). And once again, I agree that Wright's death is not acceptable! But everything doesn't always have to be a race issue. Someone can just plain F up.
I'd be cool if nobody ever got pulled over for expired plates under any circumstances ever again. Cops say they fear stops, people fear being stopped, things can go wrong, people can die. Mail the ticket.
-
I couldn't agree more about the officer being held to the highest standard. I couldn't agree more that Wright should not have been shot and that death should never be an outcome in this situation. I couldn't agree more that the officer will and should face charges for manslaughter.
I've been pulled over for having expired plates. Using your logic, there was no reason for me to have been pulled over though because I'm not black. I got ticketed. I showed up in court and got it dismissed. Wright could have done the same (maybe not the dismissal part-I'm a lawyer). And once again, I agree that Wright's death is not acceptable! But everything doesn't always have to be a race issue. Someone can just plain F up.
You misunderstand. I think there is no reason to pull either of you over. What is the point? A friendly reminder? It's over policing. It doesn't need to happen. What net positive can occur from that interaction? You got pulled over, but if you're Black in the USA you get pulled over more frequently for the same thing. Furthermore, you mentioned that you got a ticket. Meanwhile, if you were Black, you'd have a higher chance of having force used against you. That is the systemic racism that I'm talking about.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/02/california-police-black-stops-force
Black people in California were stopped by police officers much more frequently than other racial groups in 2018, and police were more likely to use force against them, new statistics from eight large law enforcement agencies in the state reveal.
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/may/black-drivers-more-likely-to-be-stopped-by-police.html
A new study, undertaken by Ravi Shroff, an assistant professor holding joint appointments at NYU Steinhardt and NYU CUSP, and his colleagues at the Stanford Open Policing Project, found that in a dataset of nearly 100 million traffic stops across the United States, black drivers were about 20 percent more likely to be stopped than white drivers relative to their share of the residential population.
This is unequivocally a race issue that we need to do a better job with in our country.
-
yo jackwagon-the link says "honoring officers KILLED in 2021" !!!
total LINE OF DUTY DEATHS- 97
what are you? Baghdad bob? and that was putting it politely
Irrelevant
-
No protests, no riots, no looting, no calls for justice, black bystander celebrates as cop pumps 12 rounds into white perpetrator and of course no national press coverage and outrage. Just a cop doing his job.
https://en-volve.com/2021/02/09/thats-the-sht-i-like-to-see-blm-supporter-celebrates-as-he-films-cop-shoot-white-guy-12-times-graphic-video/
That's the shyte you use for your news source? No wonder you see the world as you do.
-
I couldn't agree more about the officer being held to the highest standard. I couldn't agree more that Wright should not have been shot and that death should never be an outcome in this situation. I couldn't agree more that the officer will and should face charges for manslaughter.
I've been pulled over for having expired plates. Using your logic, there was no reason for me to have been pulled over though because I'm not black. I got ticketed. I showed up in court and got it dismissed. Wright could have done the same (maybe not the dismissal part-I'm a lawyer). And once again, I agree that Wright's death is not acceptable! But everything doesn't always have to be a race issue. Someone can just plain F up.
the officer certainly did overreact and what happened is unfortunate. Second Degree Manslaughter seems to be an appropriate charge and one that prosecutors can get a conviction for. What are the odds Wright would have paid the ticket or showed up? He already skipped out for his court date for choking and robbing a woman (aggravated assault and facing up to 20 years). But we absolutely need to make it a race issue - BLM leaders need more houses and Ibham Kendi needs to get paid for more speeches and sell more books.
-
yo jackwagon-the link says "honoring officers KILLED in 2021" !!!
total LINE OF DUTY DEATHS- 97
what are you? Baghdad bob? and that was putting it politely
As Pakuni said:
To be more clear, 97 cops have had what's been deemed a line-of-duty death this year.
51 of them died because of COVID-19
15 died from gunfire
8 died in a vehicle crash
7 died of vehicular assault
6 were struck by a vehicle accidentally
4 died of assault
2 were stabbed
2 suffered heart attacks
1 died of 9/11-related illness
1 died from duty-related illness
I guess dying from COVID is just like being shot by a perpetrator.
-
yo jackwagon-the link says "honoring officers KILLED in 2021" !!!
total LINE OF DUTY DEATHS- 97
what are you? Baghdad bob? and that was putting it politely
Yet your probably one of those guys who thinks Trump has zero culpability for those 51 COVID deaths.
Guys like you are so predictable.
-
the officer certainly did overreact and what happened is unfortunate. Second Degree Manslaughter seems to be an appropriate charge and one that prosecutors can get a conviction for. What are the odds Wright would have paid the ticket or showed up? He already skipped out for his court date for choking and robbing a woman (aggravated assault and facing up to 20 years). But we absolutely need to make it a race issue - BLM leaders need more houses and Ibham Kendi needs to get paid for more speeches and sell more books.
Learn to seperate Black Lives Matter, Inc from the Black Lives Matter movement. Every movement gets monetized and if you can't figure out that the movement is different from the corporation then you don't want to. Grifters will always grift. But they are two very different things.
-
This officer, like the majority of these police brutality cases, has been prosecuted. And in three days. It was obviously an unfortunate incident and each of these mainstream cases have vast differences.
What exactly do people want beyond this outcome? If the victim was white or the cop was black would your views be different? What outcome is possibly better, under our system, than this cop being charged for 2nd degree manslaughter in 3 days? Or should every case where a white officer kills a black victim, no matter how or what the circumstances are, be given the death penalty or life in prison immediately? Is it proof we're a systemically racist society because we have due process? Is it not conceivable this was a very unfortunate accident?
-
Rocket, look at the breakdown of the 97 deaths. Actually read the link.
-
the officer certainly did overreact and what happened is unfortunate. Second Degree Manslaughter seems to be an appropriate charge and one that prosecutors can get a conviction for. What are the odds Wright would have paid the ticket or showed up? He already skipped out for his court date for choking and robbing a woman (aggravated assault and facing up to 20 years). But we absolutely need to make it a race issue - BLM leaders need more houses and Ibham Kendi needs to get paid for more speeches and sell more books.
Furthermore, I'd check your facts regarding the outstanding charges before taking what Jessie Watters says and running with it as fact. I'll let the others check out whom Jessie works for. Here are the documents if you want to look at them.
https://www.insider.com/daunte-wright-details-of-charges-warrants-before-killed-by-police-2021-4
His case from 2019 (the aggravated assault that you're referencing) was scheduled for August 2021. He didn't skip the date since August 2021 is still about 8 months away.
Now, there was a court date set for 4/2 which he missed and a warrant was issued. He was charged with fleeing from police, and carrying a pistol without a permit. The pistol in question was in the vehicle that he fled and was confiscated as evidence by the police. Should he have shown up for the zoom court date? Yes, of course.
I'm not excusing his behavior at all, but you seem to be trying to justify his death. Why?
-
This officer, like the majority of these police brutality cases, has been prosecuted. And in three days. It was obviously an unfortunate incident and each of these mainstream cases have vast differences.
What exactly do people want beyond this outcome? If the victim was white or the cop was black would your views be different? What outcome is possibly better, under our system, than this cop being charged for 2nd degree manslaughter in 3 days? Or should every case where a white officer kills a black victim, no matter how or what the circumstances are, be given the death penalty or life in prison immediately? Is it proof we're are a systemically racist society because we have due process? Is it not conceivable this was a very unfortunate accident?
Demilitarize the police. That is the bar.
No one here is calling for the death penalty or life in prison, so maybe take a step back. People want justice, not vengeance. If you don't give them justice, they will seek vengeance.
-
I'm not excusing his behavior at all, but you seem to be trying to justify his death. Why?
To be fair, I think it’s less so justifying his death and moreso pushing back on the idea that Wright was some innocent youth out for a drive who was executed just cause he was black. Nothing he did deserved being shot, I don’t disagree at all with that, but there is this persistent need to make every victim in this scenario out to be an angel. It’s as distracting and unnecessary as the “maybe don’t resist arrest, durrr” argument .
No one here is calling for the death penalty or life in prison, so maybe take a step back. People want justice, not vengeance. If you don't give them justice, they will seek vengeance.
I can ASSURE you sentiment is rampant that the manslaughter charge is too weak and people are demanding murder. The same people would be livid when a jury wouldn’t convict on those same murder charges cause you couldn’t prove that in this scenario.
-
This officer, like the majority of these police brutality cases, has been prosecuted. And in three days. It was obviously an unfortunate incident and each of these mainstream cases have vast differences.
1. Only a small fraction of police brutality cases lead to prosecution.
2. She hasn't been prosecuted, she's been charged. And in no way is three days fast. Had Duante Wright shot and killed Officer Kim Potter, do you think he'd have been a free man for three days while authorities decided whether or not to charge him?
3. It's not "an unfortunate incident." An unfortunate incident is when you spill your drink or stub your toe. This is, at best, a case of gross incompetence and reckless indifference that led to a person's death.
-
Demilitarize the police. That is the bar.
No one here is calling for the death penalty or life in prison, so maybe take a step back. People want justice, not vengeance. If you don't give them justice, they will seek vengeance.
So what does demilitarization mean exactly? They should no longer carry weapons? No tear gas for riots? Basically enforce law and order with fewer resources? How many unarmed an non-threatening people are killed by cops during the course of a year? How does this compare to other homicide rates?
We can talk about qualified immunity, or better training overall, racial profiling, abuse of power, or what have you. All of these things should be looked at as far as potential reforms. But we also cannot neglect root causes or basic communication and how one should interact with cops when arrested or questioned.
It's important to know your rights and there are bad cops, no one denies that. But vilifying the entire profession, and their importance to our society, is exacerbating these problems exponentially. They cannot be hamstrung to the point where they can't do their jobs. It would hurt our most economically disadvantaged people the most.
-
To be fair, I think it’s less so justifying his death and moreso pushing back on the idea that Wright was some innocent youth out for a drive who was executed just cause he was black. Nothing he did deserved being shot, I don’t disagree at all with that, but there is this persistent need to make every victim in this scenario out to be an angel. It’s as distracting and unnecessary as the “maybe don’t resist arrest, durrr” argument .
Do you also interrupt eulogies to point out that the deceased wasn't an angel?
Honestly, why is anyone surprised, upset or bothered by the fact Daunte Wright's loved ones have good things to say about him after his death? What would you expect?
"Boy, my son was a real piece of sh*t, I tell you."
For chrissakes.
Look, of course he wasn't an angel. Few of us are. But the fact that had a past criminal charge - not conviction, mind you - is irrelevant here, and is being brought up for the sole purpose of sullying his reputation.
-
1. Only a small fraction of police brutality cases lead to prosecution.
2. She hasn't been prosecuted, she's been charged. And in no way is three days fast. Had Duante Wright shot and killed Officer Kim Potter, do you think he'd have been a free man for three days while authorities decided whether or not to charge him?
3. It's not "an unfortunate incident." An unfortunate incident is when you spill your drink or stub your toe. This is, at best, a case of gross incompetence and reckless indifference that led to a person's death.
My mistake, charged. And it may very well have been gross negligence but that's why she's being charged.
-
So what does demilitarization mean exactly? They should no longer carry weapons? No tear gas for riots? Basically enforce law and order with fewer resources? How many unarmed an non-threatening people are killed by cops during the course of a year? How does this compare to other homicide rates?
We can talk about qualified immunity, or better training overall, racial profiling, abuse of power, or what have you. All of these things should be looked at as far as potential reforms. But we also cannot neglect root causes or basic communication and how one should interact with cops when arrested or questioned.
It's important to know your rights and there are bad cops, no one denies that. But vilifying the entire profession, and their importance to our society, is exacerbating these problems exponentially. They cannot be hamstrung to the point where they can't do their jobs. It would hurt our most economically disadvantaged people the most.
When people speak of demilitarizing the police, they generally mean no longer equipping police with military-style equipment, such as assault rifles, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, armored vehicles, etc.
For some, it also means ending or minimizing paramilitary units and tactics.
-
Do you also interrupt eulogies to point out that the deceased wasn't an angel?
Honestly, why is anyone surprised, upset or bothered by the fact Daunte Wright's loved ones have good things to say about him after his death? What would you expect?
"Boy, my son was a real piece of sh*t, I tell you."
For chrissakes.
Look, of course he wasn't an angel. Few of us are. But the fact that had a past criminal charge - not conviction, mind you - is irrelevant here, and is being brought up for the sole purpose of sullying his reputation.
I’m not talking about his family. I’m talking about people commenting on it.
It’s the same vein as the people still to this day repeating that Breonna Taylor was asleep in bed. It’s unnecessary meant to make something horrible look completely evil. It just gives apologists ammunition to shoot apart silly hyperbole. Why talk sensibly about how f***ked policing is in this country and how it can be fixed when you can just yell ACAB.
-
When people speak of demilitarizing the police, they generally mean no longer equipping police with military-style equipment, such as assault rifles, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, armored vehicles, etc.
For some, it also means ending or minimizing paramilitary units and tactics.
Would any of these measures have stopped what happened over the summer and the other day? And when I say an unfortunate incident it is in the context of being a police officer and dealing with violent criminals. That's not to say she was not incompetent or negligent, but police often have less than .5 secs to make a decision. When they do make mistakes, unlike normal people, sadly it can result in an innocent person dying.
-
I’m not talking about his family. I’m talking about people commenting on it.
It’s the same vein as the people still to this day repeating that Breonna Taylor was asleep in bed. It’s unnecessary meant to make something horrible look completely evil. It just gives apologists ammunition to shoot apart silly hyperbole. Why talk sensibly about how f***ked policing is in this country and how it can be fixed when you can just yell ACAB.
If you're looking for someone to defend the ACAB crowd, you've got the wrong guy.
That said, any examples of non-family members or loved ones saying Mr. Wright was an angel? And again, the man was just tragically killed. Why would it bother anyone that people are saying kind things about him rather than publicly discussing his flaws or worst moments? It seems quite a natural thing to do, doesn't it?
Anyhow, we're getting pretty off topic now. The man was unjustifiably killed and there's reason to suspect his race played a role in that. End of story.
-
I couldn't agree more about the officer being held to the highest standard. I couldn't agree more that Wright should not have been shot and that death should never be an outcome in this situation. I couldn't agree more that the officer will and should face charges for manslaughter.
I've been pulled over for having expired plates. Using your logic, there was no reason for me to have been pulled over though because I'm not black. I got ticketed. I showed up in court and got it dismissed. Wright could have done the same (maybe not the dismissal part-I'm a lawyer). And once again, I agree that Wright's death is not acceptable! But everything doesn't always have to be a race issue. Someone can just plain F up.
That didn't need to happen to you, Lighthouse.
Your anecdote shouldn't distract from the fact that this happens to Black folks at a ridiculously high percentage. It's the very definition of "systemic racism." It's so unnecessary and avoidable, and that's what frustrates Black people and those who sympathize with their plight.
-
That didn't need to happen to you, Lighthouse.
Your anecdote shouldn't distract from the fact that this happens to Black folks at a ridiculously high percentage. It's the very definition of "systemic racism." It's so unnecessary and avoidable, and that's what frustrates Black people and those who sympathize with their plight.
What specifically is happening at a ridiculously high percentage? Cops killing unarmed black citizens? Are you saying this was an intentional racist murder?
-
Rocket, look at the breakdown of the 97 deaths. Actually read the link.
i did tower, if you would read the link as well-total line of duty deaths-97
so are we minimizing a death if it is linked under covid? heart attack? 911 related? do those not count? these are their statistics, not mine. i merely posted what has been recorded.
maybe they got covid while performing their duties, unlike teachers, who refused to go back to work despite the science. they had to go to work. their union didn't argue not until certain conditions were met.
heart attacks? find me the research that says this wasn't work related and i will scratch it off the list-2
911 related-1 i are you to touch that one
so are the cop-haters only counting the ones like the state patrol in new mexico who was pulling someone over for a traffic related offense, not because he was brown, and got pulverized with an AR-15, then shot 3 more times point blank in the head. yeah, the traffic related stops the mayor of brooklyn center said cops don't need firearms for
ok, so even if jockstrap wants to subtract 3 or 4 of the 97 and call me a liar, he's still libeling me. ok, 93
-
28 died by assault, Rocket. 28 too many. 30% of the total number of police deaths so far this year.
And firefighters also track causes of firefighter deaths.
Firefighting
Traffic accidents involving fire apparatus and response.
Struck by other drivers while working
Heart attacks
COVID
And honestly, on a personal level, most of us rate them differently.
So, yeah. I weight death by assault of some kind differently than I do heart attacks, COVID, at fault traffic accidents.
-
What specifically is happening at a ridiculously high percentage? Cops killing unarmed black citizens? Are you saying this was an intentional racist murder?
No sir.
Blacks get pulled over for silly vehicle violations at a far higher percentage than white people do. And then things have escalated.
I AM saying there is systemic racism. Whether each individual incident is an example of overt racism is another matter.
-
so are the cop-haters only counting the ones like ...
How do you define a "cop-hater," rocket? Somebody who doesn't think a cop should kill an unarmed Black person when such a result was totally avoidable?
If so, I guess I'm a "cop-hater" ... but I actually know, like and respect cops, and so do most of us from both sides of the aisle (as well as us Independents in the middle of the aisle).
Your attempts to label and to use Newsmax talking points don't erase the facts.
-
Isn't it possible that there are a multitude of factors at play when it comes to the current state of policing in the US? There can be bad cops. There can be racist cops. There can be underlying racist policies within the police/justice system. There can be bad police policy w/r/t things like stop/frisk, making cops be glorified revenue machines, allowing police units to become tactical/military-based, "us vs them" mentality, etc.
I like some of the suggestions mentioned in here that can help remedy some of these things: community-based policing; having cops live in the areas the work/patrol; increased emphasis on improving the economics of disadvantaged/high-crime areas.
-
BTW, Rocket, I love cops.
-
Is there a map out there of police shooting unarmed black citizens in relation to:
A) the police department jurisdiction
B) the officers home
C) where the shootings take place?
I'd bet it's a lot of untrained police in suburban areas that poc have moved into very recently, and we would see that the cops have very little training outside of being revenue boosters.
-
BTW, Rocket, I love cops.
But why? Why do we inherently love cops? Why is that always a reaction? In my experience in my line of work, I have met many more cops who were bad, untrained, downright cruel, or power hungry then I have cops who actually gave a damn. We shouldn't just love cops solely because they have a badge.
-
And solely to rocket:
Please tell me what 100 cops who died in the line out duty (which your just 100% incorrect or deceiving about) has to do with a police officer who mistook her gun for a God damn unnatural carnal knowledgeing taste?
I believe you are a smart man, knowing your a dentist and all. So therefore I do expect a well thought out response to the above.
-
I have drank with them, golfed with them, worked with them at scenes, helped them get a suspect's name from a shooting victim who didn't want to talk, been standing next to them when they are in tears and begging their comrades to find the gun they swear they saw before they shot the guy. (There was a gun). I have argued policy with them. They view the world differently than I do. By design. They are human and theirs is probably the second most thankless job in our society behind public school teachers. For parallel reasons. Punching bags of both the right and left and every time one of their members does something stupid it makes the entire profession look bad.
Everybody thinks they could do the job better, but so few actually step up.
-
I have drank with them, golfed with them, worked with them at scenes, helped them get a suspect's name from a shooting victim who didn't want to talk, been standing next to them when they are in tears and begging their comrades to find the gun they swear they saw before they shot the guy. (There was a gun). I have argued policy with them. They view the world differently than I do. By design. They are human and theirs is probably the second most thankless job in our society behind public school teachers. For parallel reasons. Punching bags of both the right and left and every time one of their members does something stupid it makes the entire profession look bad.
Everybody thinks they could do the job better, but so few actually step up.
which is ironic because rocket ripped teachers in this thread. or maybe he just ripped unions - doing their job by protecting their members - which is further ironic because police have unions that do the exact same thing...
-
And solely to rocket:
Please tell me what 100 cops who died in the line out duty (which your just 100% incorrect or deceiving about) has to do with a police officer who mistook her gun for a God damn unnatural carnal knowledgeing taste?
I believe you are a smart man, knowing your a dentist and all. So therefore I do expect a well thought out response to the above.
The facts do not support your supposition. Quite the contrary.
-
The police problem we have has several root causes
1) It's the officer whose assignment is to hold taxes down by writing tickets -- and writes you up for going 30 in a 25 zone at 4:30 a.m., or municipal and county police officers who turn Interstate 75 from Atlanta to the Florida/Georgia line into a giant cat and mouse game.
2) It is driving down Interstate 55 between Chicago and St. Louis and seeing the Illinois State Police pull over every old, worn-out late model car driven by African-American drivers for some nonsensical violation, as people blow by the stop at 85 to 100 mph.
3) It's serving on a jury in Lake County, IL in which an African-American woman is charged with assault because a police officer stuck a hand in her car door as she closed it. The same police officer couldn't get his testimony straight as to whether the incident occurred at 3 a.m., or 3 p.m. To a person, the all-white jury acquitted immediately and asked the same question in the jury room: "Why are we wasting our time and the public's money on this Mickey Mouse case?" Because the Defendant in the case was African-American and gave a policeman "lip," whatever that is (perhaps defending her rights).
4) It is a brutish police officer pulling you over because he has a quota of DUI stops and acts as if you just committed capital murder. And, when you assert your Constitutional rights, he or she acts as if you don't have any.
5 It's police officers opening lying about your alleged violation to make your case stand up in court.
Each of these is real and affected me personally. I inevitably get out of whatever a police officers throws at me because I either hire a lawyer or just pay the fine. But it leaves resentment -- the jury case in particular. When you multiply this by a dozen or more, you begin to understand why African Americans distrust the police.
To do a comparison, a few years back I was stopped by one of the fabled Crimson Cruisers of the Minnesota State Police. It was on MN 61 south of Grand Marais. The police officer engaged my Dad and myself and began asking questions. He was polite and considerate and noted that my rate of speed was just a bit higher than the posted limit. He did a wants and warrants, found I was clean and asked my Dad to "take charge." They both laughed when Dad said, "that ship sailed decades ago!" I got a warning with a promise that his buddies up the road will be watching.
Effective enforcement -- I didn't speed again. The officer was respectful and so was I. He did his duty and treated me (and Dad) with the respect due a constituent and citizen. If more officers were like him, well, we'd probably have fewer problems.
Full Disclosure: My son has a degree in Social Work and is training to be a police officer. I admit I have some concern, but it is his career choice and I hope he becomes a bright light in a new wave of police officers.
-
But why? Why do we inherently love cops? Why is that always a reaction? In my experience in my line of work, I have met many more cops who were bad, untrained, downright cruel, or power hungry then I have cops who actually gave a damn. We shouldn't just love cops solely because they have a badge.
Can only speak for myself. I don't "inherently love cops." The cops I have known have been decent people. Neither I nor any member of my family has been treated badly by a cop, so I have no reason for personal animus. I respect how difficult their job can be.
I have no doubt that there are a-hole cops and racist cops and lazy cops, etc etc etc ... just as there are a-holes and racists and sloths within every profession.
I do not personally know enough sample size to know if "cops are racist," and I try not to paint entire groups of people with a broad brush. But I am quite sure that law enforcement in America has a pretty serious systemic racism problem.
-
This officer, like the majority of these police brutality cases, has been prosecuted. And in three days. It was obviously an unfortunate incident and each of these mainstream cases have vast differences.
What exactly do people want beyond this outcome? If the victim was white or the cop was black would your views be different? What outcome is possibly better, under our system, than this cop being charged for 2nd degree manslaughter in 3 days? Or should every case where a white officer kills a black victim, no matter how or what the circumstances are, be given the death penalty or life in prison immediately? Is it proof we're a systemically racist society because we have due process? Is it not conceivable this was a very unfortunate accident?
Muggsy- obviously we disagree on nearly everything political but I generally agree with you here.
If this type of reaction was the norm, blacks would not feel so alienated by the police. They could have a reasonable expectation that justice would be served in these cases. And police would fully understand that they are accountable for their actions.
-
Not all police need lethal weapons. I strongly believe that we need to stop expecting police to be jacks and jills of all trades that deal with all of society's various ills. Divide police into more specifically trained groups:
Community policing. No weapons, responsible for building trust in neighborhoods, respond to mental health concerns, issues with homelessness, minor infractions, etc.
Traffic policing. Non-lethal weapons only, responsible for the rules of the road, responding to minor infractions like drunk and disorderly, assault (no weapons), etc.
Intervention policing. Lethal weapons, responsible for responding to significant infractions, domestic disturbances, serving warrants to violent offenders, etc.
Crisis policing. Militarized weapons, reserved for when they are really needed.
I truly believe this would a go a long way towards fixing a lot of the issues in the current system. Police are expected to deal with so many things that no one has the training or expertise to respond to all of them effectively. Add a lethal weapon to that mix and tragic mistakes (and tragic non-mistakes) are bound to happen.
-
Not all police need lethal weapons. I strongly believe that we need to stop expecting police to be jacks and jills of all trades that deal with all of society's various ills. Divide police into more specifically trained groups:
Community policing. No weapons, responsible for building trust in neighborhoods, respond to mental health concerns, issues with homelessness, minor infractions, etc.
Traffic policing. Non-lethal weapons only, responsible for the rules of the road, responding to minor infractions like drunk and disorderly, assault (no weapons), etc.
Intervention policing. Lethal weapons, responsible for responding to significant infractions, domestic disturbances, serving warrants to violent offenders, etc.
Crisis policing. Militarized weapons, reserved for when they are really needed.
I truly believe this would a go a long way towards fixing a lot of the issues in the current system. Police are expected to deal with so many things that no one has the training or expertise to respond to all of them effectively. Add a lethal weapon to that mix and tragic mistakes (and tragic non-mistakes) are bound to happen.
What if they respond to these incidents, for example a mental health issue, and they are attacked? And what happens if criminals know they aren't armed and target them in a traffic stop? It is extremely important for local police to build trust in their neighborhoods but that goes both ways.
Stop resisting arrest. Remember that Atlanta incident when the guy parked at Wendy's, seemingly was cooperating, and then stole the cop's taser? There is no way you can anticipate how an altercation will go even if it appears relatively straightforward and innocuous.
-
What if they respond to these incidents, for example a mental health issue, and they are attacked?
They work in teams and don't approach a situation they don't feel comfortable handling. Call for backup if necessary.
And what happens if criminals know they aren't armed and target them in a traffic stop?
I think you find that attacks on police decrease, not increase. As has been noted ad naseum in this thread, police being killed by criminals is a rare event in this country and it's rarely from a targeted ambush like you are suggesting. I think removing weapons from these situations will ease tensions on both sides.
Stop resisting arrest.
Stop blaming the victim.
Remember that Atlanta incident when the guy parked at Wendy's, seemingly was cooperating, and then stole the cop's taser? There is no way you can anticipate how an altercation will go even if it appears relatively straightforward and innocuous.
The killing of Rayshard Brooks is a perfect example of how removing weapons from a situation could improve policing.
1. If weapons were removed, Rayshard Brooks would still be alive and be receiving due process for DUI and resisting arrest
2. If weapons were removed, the officer wouldn't be facing murder charges for shooting a man armed with only a discharged taser in the back from 18 feet away
I think both of those of would have been more positive outcomes than what actually happened.
-
But why? Why do we inherently love cops? Why is that always a reaction? In my experience in my line of work, I have met many more cops who were bad, untrained, downright cruel, or power hungry then I have cops who actually gave a damn. We shouldn't just love cops solely because they have a badge.
Can we some day not base most arguments on the internet on whether something or someone is always 100% right or wrong. We're all aware that isn't realistic.
Not even cops think all cops are good (deserving of "inherent love"). My mom was a cop & my brother is currently one. Both are genuinely good people that also love the profession & want/wanted to have a part in bettering it. That said, neither of them even inherently love all cops. I'm trying to think of a single profession on earth where those in the profession, or people generally, think all in it are good without question.
I have never personally interacted with an officer that would not absolutely detest & reject the officer in this case & others like it.
Can I suggest that anyone on the internet saying "I love all cops no matter what" is merely trolling for your outrage. The world is too nuanced to observe it in such a manichean way.
-
Can we some day not base most arguments on the internet on whether something or someone is always 100% right or wrong. We're all aware that isn't realistic.
Not even cops think all cops are good (deserving of "inherent love"). My mom was a cop & my brother is currently one. Both are genuinely good people that also love the profession & want/wanted to have a part in bettering it. That said, neither of them even inherently love all cops. I'm trying to think of a single profession on earth where those in the profession, or people generally, think all in it are good without question.
I have never personally interacted with an officer that would not absolutely detest & reject the officer in this case & others like it.
Can I suggest that anyone on the internet saying "I love all cops no matter what" is merely trolling for your outrage. The world is too nuanced to observe it in such a manichean way.
Eloquent response that was better than mine. Well said.
-
D'Lo, well said. Cops are human. There are good ones and bad ones. And even good people have bad days. Cops bad days are more visible and can have very bad outcomes.
-
What if they respond to these incidents, for example a mental health issue, and they are attacked? And what happens if criminals know they aren't armed and target them in a traffic stop? It is extremely important for local police to build trust in their neighborhoods but that goes both ways.
Stop resisting arrest. Remember that Atlanta incident when the guy parked at Wendy's, seemingly was cooperating, and then stole the cop's taser? There is no way you can anticipate how an altercation will go even if it appears relatively straightforward and innocuous.
Think for a second and answer these yourself. There are a ton of solutions out there. Pretending that everything is okay is clearly not the answer. Don't fall into the trap of defending a clearly broken system. TAMU and Pakuni have responded exactly how I would respond when you asked what demilitarize the police means. It means, don't make the police look like the military. Stop equipping them like infantry when they have far less training and need for such things. If you need military vehicles and equipment, then call the National Guard.
You can say braindead crap like "stop resisting arrest" but it isn't your race that is treated extremely unfairly by the criminal justice system. Black Americans have worse outcomes for being charged, sentenced, and paroled than White Americans. So you, as a white person, can say "stop resisting arrest" but you know you will probably be treated fairly by our criminal justice system. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd probably have a much higher fear of entering the criminal justice system than you do.
What does that Wendy's incident have to do with anything? A tazer isn't lethal (usually) and can be fired ONCE... Not to mention, the officer is almost certainly wearing body armor which makes the Tazer less likely to be effective. If a guy steals an officer's Tazer they can back off and call for backup. This is another huge problem. Police officers need to do a much better job of deescalating situations instead of using force. Talking through a problem instead of treating everything adversarially would lead to much better results.
You can't look a the US criminal justice system and act like it isn't absolutely broken. We have the HIGHEST prison population and the highest per capita in the WORLD. There are over 2 million Americans in the prison system of the US. Our country has 328 million people in it. China has the second high prison population at 1.7 million... but they have 1.4 BILLION people. Do you see the problem? Not to mention we have some of the worst outcomes worldwide in recidivism (people who go back to prison after release). 2 out of 3 people who go to prison will return. *(1) Why does this happen? Do we attempt to rehabilitate our incarcerated population? If I failed my job 2/3 of the time, and you were my boss, you'd fire me well before I got to 2/3s failure rate. So why do we continue on with what we are doing? What is the justification? Are US incarcerated people impossible to reform? Certainly not. But part of the reason we have millions of prisoners in the US is slavery. I'm not talking about plantations and the South pre-civil war. I'm referring to prisoners who are 'afforded the luxury' of 'learning job skills' while in prison. *(2). This doesn't even begin to address the for profit prison system in the US. Which make more money from recidivism. We throw tax dollars at these companies! Why are we incentivizing prisoner retention? A lot of people cry up and down about labor camps in China, but fail to recognize that we have the EXACT SAME sort of thing happening right here in the US of A right under lady liberty's skirt.
Sorry, I went on a bit of a tangent there, but instead of asking everyone to answer questions non stop, consider doing a little bit of searching on your own. That way, you're more likely to accept the information instead of dismissing it because of who wrote it.
sources
*1 https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-health/interventions-resources/incarceration
*2 https://nondoc.com/2020/01/17/oklahoma-prison-telemarketing-contracts/
-
Muggs:
Officer Kim Potter was charged. She wasn't convicted of anything, and she might never be. Folks keep saying they want due process. A charge is part of due process. She will get her day in court. Sadly, her decision to use unnecessary force robbed Daunte Wright of his chance to receive due process.
No human being of any race, color, creed, religion or gender should have received a death sentence for what either Daunte Wright or George Floyd did.
-
Think for a second and answer these yourself. There are a ton of solutions out there. Pretending that everything is okay is clearly not the answer. Don't fall into the trap of defending a clearly broken system. TAMU and Pakuni have responded exactly how I would respond when you asked what demilitarize the police means. It means, don't make the police look like the military. Stop equipping them like infantry when they have far less training and need for such things. If you need military vehicles and equipment, then call the National Guard.
You can say braindead crap like "stop resisting arrest" but it isn't your race that is treated extremely unfairly by the criminal justice system. Black Americans have worse outcomes for being charged, sentenced, and paroled than White Americans. So you, as a white person, can say "stop resisting arrest" but you know you will probably be treated fairly by our criminal justice system. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd probably have a much higher fear of entering the criminal justice system than you do.
What does that Wendy's incident have to do with anything? A tazer isn't lethal (usually) and can be fired ONCE... Not to mention, the officer is almost certainly wearing body armor which makes the Tazer less likely to be effective. If a guy steals an officer's Tazer they can back off and call for backup. This is another huge problem. Police officers need to do a much better job of deescalating situations instead of using force. Talking through a problem instead of treating everything adversarially would lead to much better results.
You can't look a the US criminal justice system and act like it isn't absolutely broken. We have the HIGHEST prison population and the highest per capita in the WORLD. There are over 2 million Americans in the prison system of the US. Our country has 328 million people in it. China has the second high prison population at 1.7 million... but they have 1.4 BILLION people. Do you see the problem? Not to mention we have some of the worst outcomes worldwide in recidivism (people who go back to prison after release). 2 out of 3 people who go to prison will return. *(1) Why does this happen? Do we attempt to rehabilitate our incarcerated population? If I failed my job 2/3 of the time, and you were my boss, you'd fire me well before I got to 2/3s failure rate. So why do we continue on with what we are doing? What is the justification? Are US incarcerated people impossible to reform? Certainly not. But part of the reason we have millions of prisoners in the US is slavery. I'm not talking about plantations and the South pre-civil war. I'm referring to prisoners who are 'afforded the luxury' of 'learning job skills' while in prison. *(2). This doesn't even begin to address the for profit prison system in the US. Which make more money from recidivism. We throw tax dollars at these companies! Why are we incentivizing prisoner retention? A lot of people cry up and down about labor camps in China, but fail to recognize that we have the EXACT SAME sort of thing happening right here in the US of A right under lady liberty's skirt.
Sorry, I went on a bit of a tangent there, but instead of asking everyone to answer questions non stop, consider doing a little bit of searching on your own. That way, you're more likely to accept the information instead of dismissing it because of who wrote it.
sources
*1 https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-health/interventions-resources/incarceration
*2 https://nondoc.com/2020/01/17/oklahoma-prison-telemarketing-contracts/
This is really well said. The other thing is that Police are agents of the State. They are part of government, which is something I hear from many is too involved in our day to day lives. But as such they have the extraordinary responsibility of keeping ALL citizens protected - including those accused of crimes.
In this recent incident, I would place about 5-10% of the blame on the cop. It looks as though she was a good cop, not like Chauvin for instance, who simply made a mistake.
I would place the vast majority of the blame on how we police in this country. We pull too many people over for relatively minor reasons. (An expired registration tag? Cmon...) Also they find out that he had an open arrest warrant for an alleged crime, a victimless one at that, that occurred ten months ago that wasn't serious enough to investigate even though the alleged criminal was pretty much hiding in plain sight. We take a zero tolerance approach for someone with that warrant. He needs to be arrested NOW and by any means necessary.
Why pull him over in the first place? Why the arrest warrant for a relatively minor crime that wasn't all that serious to begin with? Why escalate the situation by demanding that warrant be enforced immediately?
This is why police are view suspiciously by many. Nothing those officers did lead to society being more safe.
-
Did I say these people deserved to die? No. But to totally disregard that confrontations with police go both ways is ridiculous. How many times do people get killed in these situations when they are not combative vs when they are? Would you recommend to your sons or brothers to attack the cops in these altercations or not? Would you tell them to burn their precincts down?
-
This is really well said. The other thing is that Police are agents of the State. They are part of government, which is something I hear from many is too involved in our day to day lives. But as such they have the extraordinary responsibility of keeping ALL citizens protected - including those accused of crimes.
In this recent incident, I would place about 5-10% of the blame on the cop. It looks as though she was a good cop, not like Chauvin for instance, who simply made a mistake.
I would place the vast majority of the blame on how we police in this country. We pull too many people over for relatively minor reasons. (An expired registration tag? Cmon...) Also they find out that he had an open arrest warrant for an alleged crime, a victimless one at that, that occurred ten months ago that wasn't serious enough to investigate even though the alleged criminal was pretty much hiding in plain sight. We take a zero tolerance approach for someone with that warrant. He needs to be arrested NOW and by any means necessary.
Why pull him over in the first place? Why the arrest warrant for a relatively minor crime that wasn't all that serious to begin with? Why escalate the situation by demanding that warrant be enforced immediately?
This is why police are view suspiciously by many. Nothing those officers did lead to society being more safe.
They reported he had an outstanding warrant for robbing a woman at gunpoint. Not sure if that's been confirmed.
-
They reported he had an outstanding warrant for robbing a woman at gunpoint. Not sure if that's been confirmed.
Read first, comment second. Specifically, my comments.
-
Did I say these people deserved to die? No. But to totally disregard that confrontations with police go both ways is ridiculous. How many times do people get killed in these situations when they are not combative vs when they are? Would you recommend to your sons or brothers to attack the cops in these altercations or not? Would you tell them to burn their precincts down?
Would you be blaming the victim if he was your son or brother?
If your son or brother had been shot to death by a cop who thought she had a Taser in her hand - when even a Taser was unnecessary in the situation - would you be saying that it was your son or brother's fault and that the cop deserved "due process" (which BTW she is getting)?
-
Did I say these people deserved to die? No. But to totally disregard that confrontations with police go both ways is ridiculous. How many times do people get killed in these situations when they are not combative vs when they are? Would you recommend to your sons or brothers to attack the cops in these altercations or not? Would you tell them to burn their precincts down?
In this case, the Police were the ones to escalate the confrontation. You seem to think that whatever the Police do is "right," that their orders are to be taken without question, and that whatever the other party does is therefore "wrong." That's just not accurate.
-
i did tower, if you would read the link as well-total line of duty deaths-97
so are we minimizing a death if it is linked under covid? heart attack? 911 related? do those not count? these are their statistics, not mine. i merely posted what has been recorded.
maybe they got covid while performing their duties, unlike teachers, who refused to go back to work despite the science. they had to go to work. their union didn't argue not until certain conditions were met.
heart attacks? find me the research that says this wasn't work related and i will scratch it off the list-2
911 related-1 i are you to touch that one
so are the cop-haters only counting the ones like the state patrol in new mexico who was pulling someone over for a traffic related offense, not because he was brown, and got pulverized with an AR-15, then shot 3 more times point blank in the head. yeah, the traffic related stops the mayor of brooklyn center said cops don't need firearms for
ok, so even if jockstrap wants to subtract 3 or 4 of the 97 and call me a liar, he's still libeling me. ok, 93
That's just factually false. They refused to go back to work because of a lack of mitigation and a million holes in every plan that was put out. It's mind boggling how many people just assume "just go back to school" that can't seem to grasp the day to day operations of having a few thousand (or hundred) kids be monitored through the day.
-
First, Hard's, very elegant and well thought out post above. Kudo's.
Second, in these horrific situations, when people always reference "well he should have complied," I can't help but wonder when does it reach the point of reasonable fear of life.
The same people calling for "complying" are the same that defended George Zimmerman, saying he feared for his life (from an unarmed kid). There are countless examples of black males being pulled over for things like "air fresheners from the rear-view mirror" and ending up dead. Being arrested on trivial, or inaccurate charges and then dying in jail. At some point, there has to be reasonable fear for life.
In this case, the victim was pulled over for an air freshener. He complied. He got out of the car. He was not informed on why he was being arrested, and reports indicate he didn't know he had a warrant out for his arrest.
So this is a kid, pulled over for no reasonable reason, being told he was arrested, without being explained a reason. I'd call that reasonable fear.
The parallel I would use are women, who when driving alone have refused to pull over for a squad car until they were somewhere safe. What if the police decided in that instance that they were fleeing, and did a pit maneuver that led to the woman's death. Would these same people say she "should have complied"? Would she even be charged with feeing the police? The answers would be no, and no, because women would agree that it was a "reasonable fear".
Most young men would agree that they have a reasonable fear when pulled over. Why don't we support them in these situations, instead of treating them like criminals. The solution is dealing with a police situation that has led to a subset of our population being victims of racial bias, and leading to a fear from police.
-
Why pull him over in the first place? Why the arrest warrant for a relatively minor crime that wasn't all that serious to begin with? Why escalate the situation by demanding that warrant be enforced immediately?
This is why police are view suspiciously by many. Nothing those officers did lead to society being more safe.
These are very good points that often get lost in the larger discussion.
IMO, minor things like expired tags or outstanding warrants for minor crimes should not be dealt with via traffic stops, where the situation can easily escalate. Police on the beat should protect public safety - respond to dangerous traffic situations, crimes in progress, etc. Leave things like expired tags and outstanding minor warrants for administrative processes, where there is less chance of inadvertent escalation.
-
Muggs:
Officer Kim Potter was charged. She wasn't convicted of anything, and she might never be. Folks keep saying they want due process. A charge is part of due process. She will get her day in court. Sadly, her decision to use unnecessary force robbed Daunte Wright of his chance to receive due process.
No human being of any race, color, creed, religion or gender should have received a death sentence for what either Daunte Wright or George Floyd did.
The Wright scenario is very tragic. However, Potter did not rob him of due process. Wright robbed himself of his day in court,
when he became physical with the police.
Don't know how many times this senseless reaction to authority has to be repeated before people realize not to flee or become physically or verbally abusive toward law enforcement officers. Do as they say, even if you feel you have been unjustly detained. You will get your day in court, hey?
-
In this case, the Police were the ones to escalate the confrontation. You seem to think that whatever the Police do is "right," that their orders are to be taken without question, and that whatever the other party does is therefore "wrong." That's just not accurate.
Group think, fanaticism, tribalism, can be applied to a variety of topics. It's like thanking someone for their service without knowing anything about their service. This makes for one sided knee jerk reactions that later require much back and forth discussion, as well objective dividual topic examination for each situation. Some fanatics are always gonna fanatic regardless of individual situation.
In this example, the officer created and escalated the violent encounter. The officer chose violence (gun or taser) when it wasn't appropriate to the situation.
-
The Wright scenario is very tragic. However, Potter did not rob him of due process. Wright robbed himself of his day in court,
when he became physical with the police.
Don't know how many times this senseless reaction to authority has to be repeated before people realize not to flee or become physically or verbally abusive toward law enforcement officers. Do as they say, even if you feel you have been unjustly detained. You will get your day in court, hey?
He didn't become physical with police. He wasn't physically abusive towards police. He literally tried to leave.
It's not okay to automatically shoot someone 100% of the time with a gun or taser, if the other person doesn't comply with a command.
This is the part I don't think you understand.
-
The Wright scenario is very tragic. However, Potter did not rob him of due process. Wright robbed himself of his day in court,
when he became physical with the police.
Don't know how many times this senseless reaction to authority has to be repeated before people realize not to flee or become physically or verbally abusive toward law enforcement officers. Do as they say, even if you feel you have been unjustly detained. You will get your day in court, hey?
Or how about police become less reliant on firearms? They only ever lead to bad outcomes. It is a systemic problem.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124039/police-killings-rate-selected-countries/
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/
-
The Wright scenario is very tragic. However, Potter did not rob him of due process. Wright robbed himself of his day in court,
when he became physical with the police.
Don't know how many times this senseless reaction to authority has to be repeated before people realize not to flee or become physically or verbally abusive toward law enforcement officers. Do as they say, even if you feel you have been unjustly detained. You will get your day in court, hey?
Wait I thought reaction to authority was what made this country great?
So confused.
-
The Wright scenario is very tragic. However, Potter did not rob him of due process. Wright robbed himself of his day in court,
when he became physical with the police.
Don't know how many times this senseless reaction to authority has to be repeated before people realize not to flee or become physically or verbally abusive toward law enforcement officers. Do as they say, even if you feel you have been unjustly detained. You will get your day in court, hey?
Your very premise is dishonest, as he LITERALLY did not become physical with the police.
He did nothing that merited a death sentence. The cop denied him his day in court. She even could have testified against him and gotten him locked up.
-
In this recent incident, I would place about 5-10% of the blame on the cop. It looks as though she was a good cop, not like Chauvin for instance, who simply made a mistake.
I would place the vast majority of the blame on how we police in this country. We pull too many people over for relatively minor reasons. (An expired registration tag? Cmon...) Also they find out that he had an open arrest warrant for an alleged crime, a victimless one at that, that occurred ten months ago that wasn't serious enough to investigate even though the alleged criminal was pretty much hiding in plain sight. We take a zero tolerance approach for someone with that warrant. He needs to be arrested NOW and by any means necessary.
Why pull him over in the first place? Why the arrest warrant for a relatively minor crime that wasn't all that serious to begin with? Why escalate the situation by demanding that warrant be enforced immediately?
I agree with the 5-10% blame on the cop. She went from exemplary veteran training officer to facing 10 years of jail time in the span of 20 seconds.
The problem with the "why pull him over" question is .. if there's no enforcement, there's no point of a law. I just paid my $130 to renew my sticker. That's not a small amount, and with no enforcement it becomes an optional tax few would pay.
We only question the practice when the story gets into the news.
In that vein, I think everyone would find this article .. disturbing: https://www.vox.com/22360290/black-lives-matter-protest-crime-ferguson-effects-murder
(one of the) TLDRs: When police reduce enforcement of minor laws, as is what happens after BLM type protests .. police shootings go down, but the murder rate goes up. If true .. the price to pay for social justice is .. steep.
You can say braindead crap like "stop resisting arrest" but it isn't your race that is treated extremely unfairly by the criminal justice system. Black Americans have worse outcomes for being charged, sentenced, and paroled than White Americans. So you, as a white person, can say "stop resisting arrest" but you know you will probably be treated fairly by our criminal justice system. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd probably have a much higher fear of entering the criminal justice system than you do.
I'm sorry, but this is a hard no. You pose the statement as if your resisting is a reasonable strategy because of "the system."
In every legal system, 100% of the time, resisting arrest will make your outcome worse (and not just for you, but incrementally for everyone after you too. )
We've heard the argument that follows .. if someone is resisting arrest, and in this case, trying to escape, then police policy should be to let them do just that, especially for a minor offense, like expired tags.
We could have that policy. But if resisting or fleeing was a winning strategy, it would be quite popular.
-
Your very premise is dishonest, as he LITERALLY did not become physical with the police.
He did nothing that merited a death sentence. The cop denied him his day in court. She even could have testified against him and gotten him locked up.
No Mike, if you watched the officer's body cam footage, its clear that! While being cuffed, he struggled and broke free, got back into his car, and was clearly attempting to flee.
-
No Mike, if you watched the officer's body cam footage, its clear that! While being cuffed, he struggled and broke free, got back into his car, and was clearly attempting to flee.
That’s why he deserved to be killed. Bet he learned his lesson
-
Wait I thought reaction to authority was what made this country great?
So confused.
Its not that hard. We are a country of law and order, not mob rule. Its clear in the record that he was attempting to flee and had criminal complaints outstanding.
-
Its not that hard. We are a country of law and order, not mob rule. Its clear in the record that he was attempting to flee and had criminal complaints outstanding.
We are a country of law and order. Unless people don’t want to wear a mask. Those people are freedom fighters.
Do I have that right?
-
I agree with the 5-10% blame on the cop. She went from exemplary veteran training officer to facing 10 years of jail time in the span of 20 seconds.
The problem with the "why pull him over" question is .. if there's no enforcement, there's no point of a law. I just paid my $130 to renew my sticker. That's not a small amount, and with no enforcement it becomes an optional tax few would pay.
We only question the practice when the story gets into the news.
In that vein, I think everyone would find this article .. disturbing: https://www.vox.com/22360290/black-lives-matter-protest-crime-ferguson-effects-murder
(one of the) TLDRs: When police reduce enforcement of minor laws, as is what happens after BLM type protests .. police shootings go down, but the murder rate goes up. If true .. the price to pay for social justice is .. steep.
I'm sorry, but this is a hard no. You pose the statement as if your resisting is a reasonable strategy because of "the system."
In every legal system, 100% of the time, resisting arrest will make your outcome worse (and not just for you, but incrementally for everyone after you too. )
We've heard the argument that follows .. if someone is resisting arrest, and in this case, trying to escape, then police policy should be to let them do just that, especially for a minor offense, like expired tags.
We could have that policy. But if resisting or fleeing was a winning strategy, it would be quite popular.
I didn’t say that car registrations should be enforced. They shouldn’t necessarily be enforced by pulling people over. Save that for moving violations where there is actually harm to the public.
I mean do police pull people over if they are late on their taxes?
-
Its not that hard. We are a country of law and order, not mob rule. Its clear in the record that he was attempting to flee and had criminal complaints outstanding.
Well then, he obviously deserved to die.
Funny that you haven't been a very big fan of law and order when it comes to the deadly 1/6/21 mob that beat cops with flagpoles and fire extinguishers, trashed the U.S. Capitol and went looking for the vice president of the United States so they could hang him.
You think they're patriots!
-
He didn't become physical with police. He wasn't physically abusive towards police. He literally tried to leave.
It's not okay to automatically shoot someone 100% of the time with a gun or taser, if the other person doesn't comply with a command.
This is the part I don't think you understand.
Your very premise is dishonest, as he LITERALLY did not become physical with the police.
He did nothing that merited a death sentence. The cop denied him his day in court. She even could have testified against him and gotten him locked up.
It's 100% correct that it's not okay to shoot someone simply for failure to comply with a command. It's 100% correct that he did nothing that merited a death sentence. It's not 100% correct to state Wright was not physical with the police and that it was ok that he "literally tried to leave." When the police place him under arrest and are cuffing him, he doesn't have the right to "leave". When place under arrest, he doesn't have the right to struggle with the cops. And that's not "victim blaming". He didn't deserve a death sentence, but it's dishonest to say he did nothing wrong in the traffic stop.
-
It's 100% correct that it's not okay to shoot someone simply for failure to comply with a command. It's 100% correct that he did nothing that merited a death sentence. It's not 100% correct to state Wright was not physical with the police and that it was ok that he "literally tried to leave." When the police place him under arrest and are cuffing him, he doesn't have the right to "leave". When place under arrest, he doesn't have the right to struggle with the cops. And that's not "victim blaming". He didn't deserve a death sentence, but it's dishonest to say he did nothing wrong in the traffic stop.
It's not okay to use a taser on someone who does not pose a threat. It's not okay to use a taser on someone because that person disobeys a command and attempts to flee.
If the person was a threat or violent etc...that requires additional examination.
It's also possible to have a specific situation change multiple times. Each time use of force has to be appropriate. Hypothetical example, if a suspect initiates and physically struggles with a police officer, some force is reasonable to gain control of the situation. What type depends of course. If at any time the suspect is not a threat, escalated use of force would not be appropriate.
Take the George Floyd killing. The officer used excessive force for quite some time on someone who did not pose a threat.
If in the Brooklyn Center example, Wright initiated force against an officer, then "reasonable" force would be allowed to gain control of the situation. Once situation gets under control, reasonable or unreaaonable force stops.
-
Yep, it's not a very reassuring thing when the best-case scenario is that an officer who routinely trains younger cops is so strikingly incompetent that she mistakes her gun for a Taser.
And your worst case scenario? That a 29 years veteran hunted him down and shot him for sport? Jesus Christ, this was a horrible, horrible accident. She effed up royally. There should be consequences. But opening the door to the possibility that this was a cold blooded murder feeds a false and dangerous narrative.
-
I have a minor side topic. With all the talk of police reform and better approaches to community policing, which I largely agree with, what first hand experience with police elsewhere, whether from expat living or extensive travel, that you find aspirational and that the US could strive for more. Obviously beyond "police in City X were so friendly and helpful when I visited, and I saw them being very kind to civilians".
Ive always thought the police in both the UK and Germany, from my experiences, were fantastic with de-escalation. I still marvel at the self control of the police in London on riot duty during some of the most chaotic protests post-George Floyd and watching protestors leap barricades to throw punches or chucking stuff at the police and they literally just wrestled people back across the line before re-establishing positions, no arrests, no brawls.
-
It's not okay to use a taser on someone who does not pose a threat. It's not okay to use a taser on someone because that person disobeys a command and attempts to flee.
If the person was a threat or violent etc...that requires additional examination.
It's also possible to have a specific situation change multiple times. Each time use of force has to be appropriate. Hypothetical example, if a suspect initiates and physically struggles with a police officer, some force is reasonable to gain control of the situation. What type depends of course. If at any time the suspect is not a threat, escalated use of force would not be appropriate.
Take the George Floyd killing. The officer used excessive force for quite some time on someone who did not pose a threat.
If in the Brooklyn Center example, Wright initiated force against an officer, then "reasonable" force would be allowed to gain control of the situation. Once situation gets under control, reasonable or unreaaonable force stops.
No disagreement with any of that Hoops. But at what point is did it become ok for Wright to just decide to leave?
-
I'm sorry, but this is a hard no. You pose the statement as if your resisting is a reasonable strategy because of "the system."
In every legal system, 100% of the time, resisting arrest will make your outcome worse (and not just for you, but incrementally for everyone after you too. )
We've heard the argument that follows .. if someone is resisting arrest, and in this case, trying to escape, then police policy should be to let them do just that, especially for a minor offense, like expired tags.
We could have that policy. But if resisting or fleeing was a winning strategy, it would be quite popular.
I think you're taking what I was getting at a bit far. I'm not excusing running away as a strategy, but I understand the desire. If he gets arrested he knows he is done. Everyone has a fight or flight system in their bodies, and his was probably in overdrive. He was panicking. Who wouldn't?
The problem lies in that it is the officer's duty to make a safe arrest. I'm suggesting that officers need to take into account that people in their custody need to be controlled firmly but safely. If they can't do that after 26 years on the force then they should have help. Why is this officer making the arrest of Daunte Wright alone? Wouldn't a team of two or more be able to prevent a situation like this? If there are more officers needed, then call for backup. If she was physically incapable of restraining him, then why was she making this arrest? I'm not suggesting we just let criminals run away and not pursue, that would be silly. I'm saying that instead of it was the duty of the officer to make a safe arrest. She should have asked for help with a suspect that becomes physical. I'm just a dumbass on a message board, but I can think of ways to solve problems like this fairly quickly, and I'd imagine I'm not alone.
If these officers are pulling over someone for tags and an air freshener and are then willing to escalate to an arrest based on the open warrant, then they should consider assessing the situation before making the arrest. Instead of being methodical or calling for backup to assist securing the situation another snap judgement had to be made. And now another American citizen is dead without due process.
-
We are a country of law and order. Unless people don’t want to wear a mask. Those people are freedom fighters.
Do I have that right?
At your own risk and consequences.
-
Well then, he obviously deserved to die.
Funny that you haven't been a very big fan of law and order when it comes to the deadly 1/6/21 mob that beat cops with flagpoles and fire extinguishers, trashed the U.S. Capitol and went looking for the vice president of the United States so they could hang him.
You think they're patriots!
C'mon, don't put words in my mouth.
-
No disagreement with any of that Hoops. But at what point is did it become ok for Wright to just decide to leave?
He didn't say it was okay to leave. His point is that force needs to be proportional to the threat. Why would anyone use a tazer on a guy trying to break free of cuffs at point blank range? His arm was behind is back at the time he tried to break free. A stiff upwards motion on his arm is incredibly painful and would likely have disabled him until the officer got required assistance. Worst case scenario is that the suspect's arm hurts for the next few days. No one would question something like that.
-
No disagreement with any of that Hoops. But at what point is did it become ok for Wright to just decide to leave?
Wright had expired tags, and, a gross misdemeanor warrant. At what point is it okay to use a taser on him because he tried to leave?
I am saying taser, not even a gun. A taser is violent. Do I believe the use of a taser in that situation was appropriate? No. Why? The suspect was not a threat at that point.
This doesn't mean we live in a lawless society where people can do whatever they want. But, when it comes to violence and use of force, appropriate use for a given situation matters. And appropriate use can fluctuate within a given situation.
The problem or challenge in this particular situation are the extreme.consequences of a particular action or actions. In this situation a poor decision can and did result in someone's killing and perhaps someone else's freedom.
Wright is the victim in this situation. He did not pose a threat at that time. His actions at that time did not warrant the use of a taser or gun. I want to emphasize taser in addition to gun. Are there other situations where a use of taser or gun are justified if not necessary? Sure. But this was not one of them.
Let's say Wright somehow is able to flee the situation. Is that a better result than someone being killed and another facing manslaughter charges? Were there zero other options than taser or gun?
Some people have a mindset that one must obey police at all times. If you don't, anything that happens after that is your fault not the police. This is an unhealthy, irrational mindset.
-
I have a minor side topic. With all the talk of police reform and better approaches to community policing, which I largely agree with, what first hand experience with police elsewhere, whether from expat living or extensive travel, that you find aspirational and that the US could strive for more. Obviously beyond "police in City X were so friendly and helpful when I visited, and I saw them being very kind to civilians".
Ive always thought the police in both the UK and Germany, from my experiences, were fantastic with de-escalation. I still marvel at the self control of the police in London on riot duty during some of the most chaotic protests post-George Floyd and watching protestors leap barricades to throw punches or chucking stuff at the police and they literally just wrestled people back across the line before re-establishing positions, no arrests, no brawls.
Cultural differences.
-
I didn’t say that car registrations should be enforced. They shouldn’t necessarily be enforced by pulling people over. Save that for moving violations where there is actually harm to the public.
I mean do police pull people over if they are late on their taxes?
Fair enough. I think the question then moves to, is it a useful tool? Does the policy of pulling people over due to a minor infraction have a societal positive?
The data says yes. Policing for minor offenses decreases overall crime. Obviously, stop and frisk went too far, but .. if you have an actual offense, do you want to remove that tool from law enforcement?
-
Fair enough. I think the question then moves to, is it a useful tool? Does the policy of pulling people over due to a minor infraction have a societal positive?
The data says yes. Policing for minor offenses decreases overall crime. Obviously, stop and frisk went too far, but .. if you have an actual offense, do you want to remove that tool from law enforcement?
What happened in Brooklyn Center kinda suggests that pulling people over for expired tags isn't a net positive.
I mean, it would be effective if the IRS sent armed agents to collect income taxes too, but we don't do that.
-
What we've been doing doesn't work. Let's not keep doing it.
De-escalate whenever possible. Violence-as-tactic only as a last resort. Enact policies requiring cops to intercede when a fellow cop is being needlessly violent or escalating a situation.
Decriminalize most drugs. Enact obvious gun legislation that even the majority of Republicans -- heck, even most NRA members -- support. Stop being for "law and order" only when it's politically expedient.
And no, making such changes would not guarantee that a George Floyd situation never happens again. There are no such things as absolutes in laws or law enforcement. Incremental changes, incrementally better results.
-
Put me in the camp of, I would rather see someone suspected of a non-violent crime flee the scene, then see them dead. If they flee the scene, you add to their charges, you track them down at a time where you can control the environment, and safely arrest them later. That is a better outcome than a dead civilian and an officer potentially facing charges. I don't think guns should be used as a deterrent to keep non-violent suspects from fleeing. If you can't arrest them safely without resorting to violence, let them flee, they're only adding to their sentence.
-
I agree with the 5-10% blame on the cop. She went from exemplary veteran training officer to facing 10 years of jail time in the span of 20 seconds.
The problem with the "why pull him over" question is .. if there's no enforcement, there's no point of a law. I just paid my $130 to renew my sticker. That's not a small amount, and with no enforcement it becomes an optional tax few would pay.
We only question the practice when the story gets into the news.
In that vein, I think everyone would find this article .. disturbing: https://www.vox.com/22360290/black-lives-matter-protest-crime-ferguson-effects-murder
(one of the) TLDRs: When police reduce enforcement of minor laws, as is what happens after BLM type protests .. police shootings go down, but the murder rate goes up. If true .. the price to pay for social justice is .. steep.
I'm sorry, but this is a hard no. You pose the statement as if your resisting is a reasonable strategy because of "the system."
In every legal system, 100% of the time, resisting arrest will make your outcome worse (and not just for you, but incrementally for everyone after you too. )
We've heard the argument that follows .. if someone is resisting arrest, and in this case, trying to escape, then police policy should be to let them do just that, especially for a minor offense, like expired tags.
We could have that policy. But if resisting or fleeing was a winning strategy, it would be quite popular.
Instead of pulling someone over for expired tags maybe mail them a ticket instead?
-
What we've been doing doesn't work. Let's not keep doing it.
De-escalate whenever possible. Violence-as-tactic only as a last resort. Enact policies requiring cops to intercede when a fellow cop is being needlessly violent or escalating a situation.
Decriminalize most drugs. Enact obvious gun legislation that even the majority of Republicans -- heck, even most NRA members -- support. Stop being for "law and order" only when it's politically expedient.
And no, making such changes would not guarantee that a George Floyd situation never happens again. There are no such things as absolutes in laws or law enforcement. Incremental changes, incrementally better results.
Is it also conceivable that by vilifying cops it will lead to far more violent crime and fewer people wanting to go into that profession? In other words could it go from."not working" to working even worse? And the suggestion that cops should not have weapons at traffic stops or dealing with mental health situations or the homeless is asinine.
-
And the suggestion that cops should not have weapons at traffic stops or dealing with mental health situations or the homeless is asinine.
Why?
-
Is it also conceivable that by vilifying cops it will lead to far more violent crime and fewer people wanting to go into that profession? In other words could it go from."not working" to working even worse? And the suggestion that cops should not have weapons at traffic stops or dealing with mental health situations or the homeless is asinine.
Authority figures will always be vilified. You sign up for that when you decide to have authority.
Why do cops need weapons for traffic stops or to deal with mental health situations, exactly?
Personally, cops shouldn't be dealing with either. They should be serving and protecting... not being traffic enforcement and social workers.
I'm going to keep this nice and short since you love to not respond to anything longer than three sentences or so.
-
I didn’t say that car registrations should be enforced. They shouldn’t necessarily be enforced by pulling people over. Save that for moving violations where there is actually harm to the public.
I mean do police pull people over if they are late on their taxes?
This. We enforce all sorts of laws in the US without pulling people over.
-
Put me in the camp of, I would rather see someone suspected of a non-violent crime flee the scene, then see them dead. If they flee the scene, you add to their charges, you track them down at a time where you can control the environment, and safely arrest them later. That is a better outcome than a dead civilian and an officer potentially facing charges. I don't think guns should be used as a deterrent to keep non-violent suspects from fleeing. If you can't arrest them safely without resorting to violence, let them flee, they're only adding to their sentence.
Very well said, TAMU.
There is no need to Taze (or shoot) someone trying to flee when his only known or suspected offenses were non-violent.
-
Is it also conceivable that by vilifying cops it will lead to far more violent crime and fewer people wanting to go into that profession?
Perhaps ... so it's a good thing that not a single word I said nor any of the possible parts of solutions I suggested came close to vilifying cops.
Suggesting that cops shouldn't be violent when violence is unnecessary is not "hating cops," and the argument that it is gets tiresome.
What we are doing now is not working - period. Not for the victims, and not for the cops. To keep doing it ... THAT'S asinine.
-
Why do cops need weapons for traffic stops or to deal with mental health situations, exactly?
Great point. Because bad guys don't drive with weapons in their cars, hey?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/28/sikh-deputy-houston-area-officer-fatally-shot-during-traffic-stop/3802158002/
https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/new-mexico-cop-darrian-jarrotts-shooting-death-during-traffic-stop-video/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/us/tulsa-oklahoma-police-dead-traffic-stop-shooting/index.html
https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/long-island-police-officer-stabbed-in-artery-during-car-stop/
https://apnews.com/article/stanley-shootings-virginia-01ed384aa7b4f9c98fd3f7b537356346
-
Great point. Because bad guys don't drive with weapons in their cars, hey?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/28/sikh-deputy-houston-area-officer-fatally-shot-during-traffic-stop/3802158002/
https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/new-mexico-cop-darrian-jarrotts-shooting-death-during-traffic-stop-video/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/us/tulsa-oklahoma-police-dead-traffic-stop-shooting/index.html
https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/long-island-police-officer-stabbed-in-artery-during-car-stop/
https://apnews.com/article/stanley-shootings-virginia-01ed384aa7b4f9c98fd3f7b537356346
Remove the dangerous element common to these situations: No more traffic stops.
-
Great point. Because bad guys don't drive with weapons in their cars, hey?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/28/sikh-deputy-houston-area-officer-fatally-shot-during-traffic-stop/3802158002/
https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/new-mexico-cop-darrian-jarrotts-shooting-death-during-traffic-stop-video/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/us/tulsa-oklahoma-police-dead-traffic-stop-shooting/index.html
https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/long-island-police-officer-stabbed-in-artery-during-car-stop/
https://apnews.com/article/stanley-shootings-virginia-01ed384aa7b4f9c98fd3f7b537356346
If the officers in these situations were unarmed and didn't attempt to do anything besides a traffic stop that they'd be dead? Of course there is no way to know, but if you know when you're pulled over that it will be a completely non violent interaction why would anyone react so violently? And of course, you can't stop everyone from being violent.
Also, those officers WERE armed and it didn't stop them from being attacked. What might stop them from being attacked is if the suspect knew they wouldn't be met with the potential for violence.
I really don't understand why people think that the solution to violence is to increase violence. That thought process has taken us to where we currently are, and it isn't a pretty place.
-
Remove the dangerous element common to these situations: No more traffic stops.
Though some would argue, and I think rightly so, that enforcing traffic laws "serves and protects" the public. Think it serves and protects the public if everyone is allowed to drive however, wherever and whenever they want? Wrong way down one way streets? No legal consequences for not obeying stop signs or lights? How many times have you been on the road and some a$$hat cuts you off, is driving like a maniac or worse and you say out loud, where's a cop when you need him?
Again, the cop shooting the guy is more than wrong, but it's insane to think we should do away with traffic laws and/or enforcement.
-
Why?
Because there is no way to know what someone has in their car as we saw in New Mexico. Some homeless people commit violent crimes as well. Also police are responsible for enforcing laws, not enacting them. The laws are made by the politicians. And those that are suggesting that the police should be defunded or abolished are btw living with security teams and behind barbed wire. It's insanely hypocritical.
I'm all for solutions about how best to reform police but the shootings of unarmed people in confrontations of all races, is exceedingly low. Reforming the police will require more funding, not less. But from what I've read recently there are a lot of cops retiring early and fewer people wanting to go into the profession. Violent crime is up btw. Imo those areas that need the most help will suffer the most under the proposals that have been suggested.
-
Because there is no way to know what someone has in their car as we saw in New Mexico. Some homeless people commit violent crimes as well. Also police are responsible for enforcing laws, not enacting them. The laws are made by the politicians. And those that are suggesting that the police should be defunded or abolished are btw living with security teams and behind barbed wire. It's insanely hypocritical.
I'm all for solutions about how best to reform police but the shootings of unarmed people in confrontations of all races, is exceedingly low. Reforming the police will require more funding, not less. But from what I've read recently there are a lot of cops retiring early and fewer people wanting to go into the profession. Violent crime is up btw. Imo those areas that need the most help will suffer the most under the proposals that have been suggested.
Whatever man, I assumed you'd be open minded. Guess I was wrong.
-
I think you're taking what I was getting at a bit far. I'm not excusing running away as a strategy, but I understand the desire. If he gets arrested he knows he is done. Everyone has a fight or flight system in their bodies, and his was probably in overdrive. He was panicking. Who wouldn't?
The problem lies in that it is the officer's duty to make a safe arrest. I'm suggesting that officers need to take into account that people in their custody need to be controlled firmly but safely.
You're suggesting that? Super! It's exactly what they are trained to do.
The real problem is .. police have to often deal with people who are not having their best day. For every hundred predictable elderly mini-van drivers, there's an unpredictable guy with a warrant who doesn't want to be captured. Police are trained to evaluate that risk and respond accordingly. Nobody wants to hear this, but doing the job flawlessly is impossible.
If they can't do that after 26 years on the force then they should have help. Why is this officer making the arrest of Daunte Wright alone? Wouldn't a team of two or more be able to prevent a situation like this? If there are more officers needed, then call for backup. If she was physically incapable of restraining him, then why was she making this arrest?
Um .. you might want to watch the video as your comments are inaccurate. She's not alone, she has two other cops with her, three in total. (Why it's not just two hasn't been reported.) Additionally, a different officer was putting the cuffs on, she approached to assist when Wright dove into the car.
Which brings up the next thought. If you're a police officer trying to arrest a man with a warrant and he dives into his car, what is he trying to do? Is it just a "simple" attempt to flee? Or does he have a weapon in the car? Uh oh. Let him go? Dive for cover? You have 2 seconds, figure it out.
I'm not suggesting we just let criminals run away and not pursue, that would be silly. I'm saying that instead of it was the duty of the officer to make a safe arrest. She should have asked for help with a suspect that becomes physical. I'm just a dumbass on a message board, but I can think of ways to solve problems like this fairly quickly, and I'd imagine I'm not alone.
If these officers are pulling over someone for tags and an air freshener and are then willing to escalate to an arrest based on the open warrant, then they should consider assessing the situation before making the arrest. Instead of being methodical or calling for backup to assist securing the situation another snap judgement had to be made. And now another American citizen is dead without due process.
So again, that's inaccurate, she was the helper to another officer who was cuffing Wright -- and the video shows how cooperative Wright was at first, getting out when asked, putting his hands behind his back without force being applied. Everything was going perfectly until .. it wasn't.
Indeed, it was routine. But as Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they are punched in the mouth.
Yep, those next 14 seconds are when your training should kick in and you do the exact right thing and use the exact right amount of force and everyone is safe.
26 years on the job and probably 100s of hours in training classes (both receiving and giving, as she was a trainer) .. and she made the tragic error.
4 days ago, that officer was exactly who society wanted on the job. Well trained, decades of experience, all in the same community. She grabs with her left hand and we're pleased a job safely done. Now, she's facing 10 years in prison.
(There have been 18 accidental taser/shootings. 7 have been charged, 3 convicted.)
-
If the officers in these situations were unarmed and didn't attempt to do anything besides a traffic stop that they'd be dead? Of course there is no way to know, but if you know when you're pulled over that it will be a completely non violent interaction why would anyone react so violently? And of course, you can't stop everyone from being violent.
Ok. Two cops have no guns when making a traffic stop. One cop walks up to the car, tells driver he stopped him for speeding and erratic driving and asks for his license and insurance. Cop goes back to his car to write the ticket and learns that driver and the car fit the description of someone with a gun who just robbed a liquor store. Cops call for back up to come with guns. Driver leaves the scene. But don't worry, the cops can just mail the ticket. That's assuming the cops weren't shot by driver since driver knows cops don't carry guns to traffic stops.
The point is that it's not so cut and dried.
-
Though some would argue, and I think rightly so, that enforcing traffic laws "serves and protects" the public. Think it serves and protects the public if everyone is allowed to drive however, wherever and whenever they want? Wrong way down one way streets? No legal consequences for not obeying stop signs or lights? How many times have you been on the road and some a$$hat cuts you off, is driving like a maniac or worse and you say out loud, where's a cop when you need him?
Again, the cop shooting the guy is more than wrong, but it's insane to think we should do away with traffic laws and/or enforcement.
Never. Not a single solitary time.
I realize that this is a tangent, so the world is free to ignore, but police officers routinely cite traffic stops as one of the highest stress interactions that they have with the public. There are certainly incidents (some of which you've documented) where those who are stopped pose a deadly risk to those doing the stopping. It is also abundantly clear that for perhaps the majority of the public, being stopped is incredibly stressful as well. The rational thing to do is to relieve that pressure as much as is feasible.
Reduce traffic stops to those necessary to intervene in clear and present dangers to the public. OWI. Reckless driving. Amber alerts. Narrow public safety issues. Rolled through a stopsign? Air freshener? Expired plates? Nope, nope, and nope. The ability to electronically surveil, identify, and issue citations absolutely exists. Certify over a video of the offense along with the ticket, mail it with a court summons, and everyone stays safe.
This will, of course, never happen.
-
Because there is no way to know what someone has in their car as we saw in New Mexico. Some homeless people commit violent crimes as well. Also police are responsible for enforcing laws, not enacting them. The laws are made by the politicians. And those that are suggesting that the police should be defunded or abolished are btw living with security teams and behind barbed wire. It's insanely hypocritical.
I'm all for solutions about how best to reform police but the shootings of unarmed people in confrontations of all races, is exceedingly low. Reforming the police will require more funding, not less. But from what I've read recently there are a lot of cops retiring early and fewer people wanting to go into the profession. Violent crime is up btw. Imo those areas that need the most help will suffer the most under the proposals that have been suggested.
Only idiots want police "defunded" or "abolished." Very few Americans from any party truly want it. "Defund the police" was horrendous messaging. And it's simply not going to happen, certainly on any scale. So it's now just a talking point that gives license to say: "Anybody who thinks cops ever do anything wrong hates cops. They all just want to defund the police, anyway."
What we're doing now is not working, for cops or victims. What about that is incorrect? You think everything is working swimmingly? Thoughts and prayers cover things well enough, so eff it?
-
You're suggesting that? Super! It's exactly what they are trained to do.
The real problem is .. police have to often deal with people who are not having their best day. For every hundred predictable elderly mini-van drivers, there's an unpredictable guy with a warrant who doesn't want to be captured. Police are trained to evaluate that risk and respond accordingly. Nobody wants to hear this, but doing the job flawlessly is impossible.
Um .. you might want to watch the video as your comments are inaccurate. She's not alone, she has two other cops with her, three in total. (Why it's not just two hasn't been reported.) Additionally, a different officer was putting the cuffs on, she approached to assist when Wright dove into the car.
Which brings up the next thought. If you're a police officer trying to arrest a man with a warrant and he dives into his car, what is he trying to do? Is it just a "simple" attempt to flee? Or does he have a weapon in the car? Uh oh. Let him go? Dive for cover?
So again, that's inaccurate, she was the helper to another officer who was cuffing Wright -- and the video shows how cooperative Wright was at first, getting out when asked, putting his hands behind his back without force being applied. Everything was going perfectly until .. it wasn't.
Indeed, it was routine. But as Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they are punched in the mouth.
Yep, those next 14 seconds are when your training should kick in and you do the exact right thing and use the exact right amount of force and everyone is safe.
26 years on the job and probably 100s of hours in training classes (both receiving and giving, as she was a trainer) .. and she made the tragic error.
4 days ago, that officer was exactly who society wanted on the job. Well trained, decades of experience, all in the same community. She grabs with her left hand and we're pleased a job safely done. Now, she's facing 10 years in prison.
(There have been 18 accidental taser/shootings. 7 have been charged, 3 convicted.)
You're right, shoot everyone. I'm done trying to convince people that what we're doing is wrong. It is unfathomable to me that you can look at the video and think, "Whoopsie daisy! She had a bad day." You know who had a worse day? The dead guy and his family.
Car door wide open, terrible arm restraint by the first officer... just two glaring things wrong before things went really sideways. Tasers are yellow and are on the opposite hip and weigh a lot less than fire arms... Plus she had to flick the safety off her firearm... Tasers don't have them. But you know, whatever. She's just a cop who sleep walked through a dangerous situation but she was just doing her job! And let's not forget that jobs can be hard!
I've said from the beginning that this was probably an accident, but that we need to do things to make sure it doesn't happen again. I've clearly laid out what I think should be done, and what I get in response is dismissal. Yes, being a cop is a hard job, and no it isn't for everyone. But that's the thing, you can decide to NOT be a police officer. You just turn in your badge and walk away.
I understand you don't want to be in the business of second guessing split decisions that police have to make in the heat of the moment, but as a society, we need to be doing exactly that.
-
Ok. Two cops have no guns when making a traffic stop. One cop walks up to the car, tells driver he stopped him for speeding and erratic driving and asks for his license and insurance. Cop goes back to his car to write the ticket and learns that driver and the car fit the description of someone with a gun who just robbed a liquor store. Cops call for back up to come with guns. Driver leaves the scene. But don't worry, the cops can just mail the ticket. That's assuming the cops weren't shot by driver since driver knows cops don't carry guns to traffic stops.
The point is that it's not so cut and dried.
Sure it is, in your scenario no one died. Also, if you add my proposal, the person who just robbed the store probably isn't pulling over for a traffic cop anyway, nor is traffic cop pulling that car over since he already has the description before he even exists the car and has called in everything. You're creating a situation that doesn't exist with my proposal. This isn't Mayberry 1950, all cop cars are kitted out with real time data, cameras, and tech.
You do realize that the real world isn't a movie, right?
-
Though some would argue, and I think rightly so, that enforcing traffic laws "serves and protects" the public. Think it serves and protects the public if everyone is allowed to drive however, wherever and whenever they want? Wrong way down one way streets? No legal consequences for not obeying stop signs or lights? How many times have you been on the road and some a$$hat cuts you off, is driving like a maniac or worse and you say out loud, where's a cop when you need him?
Again, the cop shooting the guy is more than wrong, but it's insane to think we should do away with traffic laws and/or enforcement.
Pull people over who are doing unsafe things in cars. Speeding, driving recklessly, etc.
Don't pull people over for sh*t like expired tags, tinted windows, etc.
-
Only idiots want police "defunded" or "abolished." Very few Americans from any party truly want it. "Defund the police" was horrendous messaging. And it's simply not going to happen, certainly on any scale. So it's now just a talking point that gives license to say: "Anybody who thinks cops ever do anything wrong hates cops. They all just want to defund the police, anyway."
What we're doing now is not working, for cops or victims. What about that is incorrect? You think everything is working swimmingly? Thoughts and prayers cover things well enough, so eff it?
So in this case what exactly should have been done to satisfy you and many others? She was charged for 2nd degree manslaughter and may very well do significant jail time. There have been like 15 incidents where something like this happened over 20 yrs and other police officers have been jailed.
Tell me specifically what you would do in this case because "this needs to stop" You're insinuating that this case and others, because of the dynamic of a white officer and a black victim essentially means police are systemically racist as is much of the country. Each of these cases are different and that particular dynamic doesn't prove if the response or motive was racist.
-
So in this case what exactly should have been done to satisfy you and many others? She was charged for 2nd degree manslaughter and may very well do significant jail time. There have been like 15 incidents where something like this happened over 20 yrs and other police officers have been jailed.
Tell me specifically what you would do in this case because "this needs to stop". You're insinuating that this case and others, because of the dynamic of a white officer and a black victim essentially means police are systemically racist as is much of the country. Each of these cases are different and that particular dynamic doesn't prove if the response or motive was racist.
-
So in this case what exactly should have been done to satisfy you and many others? She was charged for 2nd degree manslaughter and may very well do significant jail time. There have been like 15 incidents where something like this happened over 20 yrs and other police officers have been jailed.
Tell me specifically what you would do in this case because "this needs to stop" You're insinuating that this case and others, because of the dynamic of a white officer and a black victim essentially means police are systemically racist as is much of the country. Each of these cases are different and that particular dynamic doesn't prove if the response or motive was racist.
Proposals about what should be done have been stated multiple times in this topic. Perhaps take some time to read those responses instead of asking yet more questions.
-
Sure it is, in your scenario no one died. Also, if you add my proposal, the person who just robbed the store probably isn't pulling over for a traffic cop anyway, nor is traffic cop pulling that car over since he already has the description before he even exists the car and has called in everything. You're creating a situation that doesn't exist with my proposal. This isn't Mayberry 1950, all cop cars are kitted out with real time data, cameras, and tech.
You do realize that the real world isn't a movie, right?
You're right. Don't stop anyone for any traffic offenses. In fact, traffic laws shouldn't exist.
This isn't a world of seashells and balloons either (except in 1977). You do realize the real world isn't a fairytale, where no bad guys exist and no one commits any crime, right?
-
You're right. Don't stop anyone for any traffic offenses. In fact, traffic laws shouldn't exist.
This isn't a world of seashells and balloons either (except in 1977). You do realize the real world isn't a fairytale, where no bad guys exist and no one commits any crime, right?
I don't think anyone's saying that. They are, however, saying that high stress, high danger encounters over low-value crimes are misallocated resources. Mail the ticket for the air freshener. Cost. Benefit. Risk. Reward.
-
You're right. Don't stop anyone for any traffic offenses. In fact, traffic laws shouldn't exist.
This isn't a world of seashells and balloons either (except in 1977). You do realize the real world isn't a fairytale, where no bad guys exist and no one commits any crime, right?
Where did I say don't stop anyone? I said that the tech in police cruisers can ID a car before they are pulled over. The branch of police that I'm talking about don't deal with dangerous situations. They deal with traffic stops only, non violently, and not equipped with a firearm. And the people who are pulled over are aware of this because in the real world we tell people. If the traffic offender is deemed to be dangerous the non-violent officer follows at a safe distance until guys who are trained for this exact situation show up.
I guess what I'm saying is we need to stop making police officers the jack of all trades in terms of law enforcement. Asking them to be able to respond to every situation isn't fair to them. Just like there are different levels of health care professionals, there should be different levels of law enforcement because just like not every medical emergency needs to be solved in the ER, not every law enforcement situation needs a fully decked out intimidating officer. I hope I'm making myself clear.
-
So in this case what exactly should have been done to satisfy you and many others? She was charged for 2nd degree manslaughter and may very well do significant jail time. There have been like 15 incidents where something like this happened over 20 yrs and other police officers have been jailed.
Tell me specifically what you would do in this case because "this needs to stop" You're insinuating that this case and others, because of the dynamic of a white officer and a black victim essentially means police are systemically racist as is much of the country. Each of these cases are different and that particular dynamic doesn't prove if the response or motive was racist.
Please look at my previous posts. I don't feel like cutting and pasting.
And cops killing Black people is not the only way that systemic racism in law enforcement rears its ugly head. Unfortunately, it does seem to take the deaths -- and even then, horrific ones like Derek Chauvin's cold-blooded murder of George Floyd -- to open some people's eyes.
Of course, one has to be willing to open his or her eyes. I'd love for you to be such a person.
-
Please look at my previous posts. I don't feel like cutting and pasting.
And cops killing Black people is not the only way that systemic racism in law enforcement rears its ugly head. Unfortunately, it does seem to take the deaths -- and even then, horrific ones like Derek Chauvin's cold-blooded murder of George Floyd -- to open some people's eyes.
Of course, one has to be willing to open his or her eyes. I'd love for you to be such a person.
I appreciate your passion but have read nothing in your posts that proves systemic racism from these particular incidents. Even in the disgusting Chauvin/Floyd situation the dynamic of white/black doesn't prove anything. Chauvin may very well be a virulent racist but be also could have done crap like this to all races across the city.
Additionally, and we've had positive discussions about this before, why aren't you starting threads about children getting killed in drive-by shootings or about tragic deaths we see every weekend in our major cities? Now, the general response to this is that they are not related....or we're just talking about police brutality but to me it should be part of the entire discussion. Because I see no one protesting or rioting about these horrible murders and they happen 1000 times more frequently than police killing unarmed citizens.
-
We are a country of law and order. Unless people don’t want to wear a mask. Those people are freedom fighters.
Do I have that right?
Yes. And the other out you have is if you want to storm the U.S. Capital to hang the Vice President over a fictitious issue. Totally OK.
-
I appreciate your passion but have read nothing in your posts that proves systemic racism from these particular incidents. Even in the disgusting Chauvin/Floyd situation the dynamic of white/black doesn't prove anything. Chauvin may very well be a virulent racist but be also could have done crap like this to all races across the city.
Additionally, and we've had positive discussions about this before, why aren't you starting threads about children getting killed in drive-by shootings or about tragic deaths we see every weekend in our major cities? Now, the general response to this is that they are not related....or we're just talking about police brutality but to me it should be part of the entire discussion. Because I see no one protesting or rioting about these horrible murders and they happen 1000 times more frequently than police killing unarmed citizens.
Police are state officials, murderers are murders. Stop falling into a trap of trying to equate our law enforcement system with those of murders.
-
Police are state officials, murderers are murders. Stop falling into a trap of trying to equate our law enforcement system with those of murders.
So you don't care about non-police murders? I see. Their job by its nature leads to tragic incidents. And there are scumbag cops, and racists cops, and certainly incompetent cops. But it is also true that if people were less combative and complied with officers, no matter how wrong or unfair you perceive then to be, these sad situations would happen far less frequently.
-
Additionally, and we've had positive discussions about this before, why aren't you starting threads about children getting killed in drive-by shootings or about tragic deaths we see every weekend in our major cities?
This is typically a tactic people take when they don't want to address, or minimize, the issue at hand.
If you want to discuss this topic, start a thread.
-
Because I see no one protesting or rioting about these horrible murders and they happen 1000 times more frequently than police killing unarmed citizens.
Maybe because Fox News (and the news in general) doesn't cover them because they don't fit the narrative?
Peace marches, anti-violence protests, fundraisers, vigils, etc., take place quite often in Chicago neighborhoods.
Two more points:
1. Acting as if police killings of unarmed citizens are no different than some random gang shooting in Englewood and deserves the same attention is absurd and entirely misses the point.
2. Those who cry loudest about "black-on-black" or "inner city" crime every time a cops kills a person of color are usually the same people who fight hardest against steps that could be taken to reduce that crime. Because they don't really care about inner city crime, they just want to change the subject.
-
This is typically a tactic people take when they don't want to address, or minimize, the issue at hand.
If you want to discuss this topic, start a thread.
We disagree, I'm not minimizing anything. For example the traffic stop suggestion for cops that you and others have proposed is absolutely ridiculous imo.
-
So you don't care about non-police murders? I see. Their job by its nature leads to tragic incidents. And there are scumbag cops, and racists cops, and certainly incompetent cops. But it is also true that if people were less combative and complied with officers, no matter how wrong or unfair you perceive then to be, these sad situations would happen far less frequently.
No, that isn't what I said at all. People protest injustices meted out by the state. Don't be silly.
-
We disagree, I'm not minimizing anything. For example the traffic stop suggestion for cops that you and others have proposed is absolutely ridiculous imo.
Then explain why it can't work, and what your alternative solution is. Unless you're happy with the status quo?
-
Maybe because Fox News (and the news in general) doesn't cover them because they don't fit the narrative?
Peace marches, anti-violence protests, fundraisers, vigils, etc., take place quite often in Chicago neighborhoods.
Two more points:
1. Acting as if police killings of unarmed citizens are no different than some random gang shooting in Englewood and deserves the same attention is absurd and entirely misses the point.
2. Those who cry loudest about "black-on-black" or "inner city" crime every time a cops kills a person of color are usually the same people who fight hardest against steps that could be taken to reduce that crime. Because they don't really care about inner city crime, they just want to change the subject.
They absolutely are different but it's offensive that you would suggest I don't care about inner city crime. I absolutely do care and the roots of these issues have commonalities. And both Liberal and Conservative news sources don't discuss it for different reasons.
-
We disagree, I'm not minimizing anything. For example the traffic stop suggestion for cops that you and others have proposed is absolutely ridiculous imo.
Real in depth response.
-
I appreciate your passion but have read nothing in your posts that proves systemic racism from these particular incidents. Even in the disgusting Chauvin/Floyd situation the dynamic of white/black doesn't prove anything. Chauvin may very well be a virulent racist but be also could have done crap like this to all races across the city.
Additionally, and we've had positive discussions about this before, why aren't you starting threads about children getting killed in drive-by shootings or about tragic deaths we see every weekend in our major cities? Now, the general response to this is that they are not related....or we're just talking about police brutality but to me it should be part of the entire discussion. Because I see no one protesting or rioting about these horrible murders and they happen 1000 times more frequently than police killing unarmed citizens.
Because one has nothing to do with the other.
We rely upon our police to protect and serve us. We play their salaries. They work for us. When somebody we pay to protect and serve us instead terrorizes us, it is a breach of public trust.
Trying to use other crimes or criminals to somehow justify bad and/or careless cops is a bad look, Muggs. Trying to play gotcha: "Oh, then you don't care about other murders" is beneath you.
It's like saying, "If you get worked up because a priest rapes a dozen little boys, it proves you don't care about all the other rapes that aren't done by priests, the ones that happen 1000 times more frequently." It's false logic and totally unrelated.
-
Then explain why it can't work, and what your alternative solution is. Unless you're happy with the status quo?
Did I say I was "happy" about this? Ever?
-
Did I say I was "happy" about this? Ever?
Well you seem to make plenty of excuses for why the status quo can't change. Or at least you label them "ridiculous" without context.
-
You're right, shoot everyone. I'm done trying to convince people that what we're doing is wrong. It is unfathomable to me that you can look at the video and think, "Whoopsie daisy! She had a bad day." You know who had a worse day? The dead guy and his family.
I've said from the beginning that this was probably an accident, but that we need to do things to make sure it doesn't happen again. I've clearly laid out what I think should be done, and what I get in response is dismissal.
I understand you don't want to be in the business of second guessing split decisions that police have to make in the heat of the moment, but as a society, we need to be doing exactly that.
No one said "shoot everyone." No one said Wright didn't have a "worse day."
I don't understand .. you're dismissing the "whoopsie daisy" argument, but then say it was probably an accident. Which is it?
I apologize for not finding what you laid out "needs to be done" as you've posted a ton in this thread. Could you link to it?
-
They absolutely are different but it's offensive that you would suggest I don't care about inner city crime. I absolutely do care and the roots of these issues have commonalities. And both Liberal and Conservative news sources don't discuss it for different reasons.
I didn't throw you into my second point.
-
Did I say I was "happy" about this? Ever?
What are your solutions? Would you list your solutions? It's easy to say no.to this or that. Offer a plan, provide a solution.
There is an old saying that few things are less productive than complaint without change.
-
Because one has nothing to do with the other.
We rely upon our police to protect and serve us. We play their salaries. They work for us. When somebody we pay to protect and serve us instead terrorizes us, it is a breach of public trust.
Trying to use other crimes or criminals to somehow justify bad and/or careless cops is a bad look, Muggs. Trying to play gotcha: "Oh, then you don't care about other murders" is beneath you.
It's like saying, "If you get worked up because a priest rapes a dozen little boys, it proves you don't care about all the other rapes that aren't done by priests, the ones that happen 1000 times more frequently." It's false logic and totally unrelated.
And politicians work for us too. Who's running these cities and these police depts? We've talked about the root issues before MU82, and we agree on many things about where it needs to start. But the narrative that these police depts are systemically racist, 5 secs after these tragic events, doesn't help anything imo.
I mean is the goal for everyone to simply admit this as fact? Even in cases where the departments are 50% minorities? Let's for arguments sake say 95% of Americans agreed police are systemically racist as is White America. Then what? Would the root issues and potential solutions be different?
-
And politicians work for us too. Who's running these cities and these police depts? We've talked about the root issues before MU82, and we agree on many things about where it needs to start. But the narrative that these police depts are systemically racist, 5 secs after these tragic events, doesn't help anything imo.
I mean is the goal for everyone to simply admit this as fact? Even in cases where the departments are 50% minorities? Let's for arguments sake say 95% of Americans agreed police are systemically racist as is White America. Then what? Would the root issues and potential solutions be different?
OK Muggs. I like you too much on the basketball board to go at this yet again. Have a good one.
-
OK Muggs. I like you too much on the basketball board to go at this yet again. Have a good one.
You as well MU82. I think we just disagree on solutions and a few other narratives. Take care.
-
No one said "shoot everyone." No one said Wright didn't have a "worse day."
I don't understand .. you're dismissing the "whoopsie daisy" argument, but then say it was probably an accident. Which is it?
I apologize for not finding what you laid out "needs to be done" as you've posted a ton in this thread. Could you link to it?
*fart noises* rtft
-
13 year old Adam Toledo killed in Chicagi is goddamn sickening.
-
13 year old Adam Toledo killed in Chicagi is goddamn sickening.
Yeah. Hoping it's not an ugly night in the city, but that's bad. Not Laquan McDonald bad, and to his credit the cop tried to help the kid right away, but that's hard to watch and impossible to justify.
-
13 year old Adam Toledo killed in Chicagi is goddamn sickening.
+1
We have to terminate the prosecutor that said last week that Adam Toledo had a gun in his hands when he got shot. The city tried to walk that crap back right before they released the video saying "he didn't have all the information."
ACAB.
-
13 year old Adam Toledo killed in Chicagi is goddamn sickening.
Yep. Inexcusable for the officer to shoot, and for the prosecutor to claim the boy had a gun in his hand when he was shot.
-
Really?
13 year old running with a gun (and has GSR on his hands, so has fired the gun) chased by police at 2:30am. A second before the cop gets to him, he does indeed toss the gun and raises his hands. In the darkness, the cop doesn't see that the kid has dropped it and shoots, because a second before, he was armed.
Tough crowd.
Off the subject, but watching these past few police videos .. man, I would not want to be a cop in a major city. There's been 34 murders in Chicago since this 13 year old, roughly one every 12 hours, all across the city. It's hard to wrap my head around people who do that job and are around a murder at least weekly, let alone 3 times as many rapes, 10 times as many aggravated assaults.
-
Really?
13 year old running with a gun (and has GSR on his hands, so has fired the gun) chased by police at 2:30am. A second before the cop gets to him, he does indeed toss the gun and raises his hands. In the darkness, the cop doesn't see that the kid has dropped it and shoots, because a second before, he was armed.
Tough crowd.
Off the subject, but watching these past few police videos .. man, I would not want to be a cop in a major city. There's been 34 murders in Chicago since this 13 year old, roughly one every 12 hours, all across the city. It's hard to wrap my head around people who do that job and are around a murder at least weekly, let alone 3 times as many rapes, 10 times as many aggravated assaults.
I dunno. He yells at the kid to put his effen hands up. The kid tosses the gun and puts his hands up. The officer fires anyway.
-
Really?
13 year old running with a gun (and has GSR on his hands, so has fired the gun) chased by police at 2:30am. A second before the cop gets to him, he does indeed toss the gun and raises his hands. In the darkness, the cop doesn't see that the kid has dropped it and shoots, because a second before, he was armed.
Just to be clear, GSR doesn't mean that he fired a gun. It means he held a gun that had been recently fired. In this case, a different person has been charged with firing the gun. What seems likely is that this older person fired the gun and then gave it to the kid, as gang members do, to hide it. That way, if someone gets caught with the gun, it's a juvie who faces no serious consequences, rather than an adult gang member.
Regardless, as already has been pointed out. The cop told the kid to stop, drop the weapon and raise his hands. The kid stopped, dropped the weapon and raised his hands. The cop shot him anyhow.
Nobody's suggesting that being a police officer is easy, or this wasn't a challenging circumstance for the cop here. But ultimately, he killed a 13-year-old boy who had followed the officer's orders and had his hands in the air. Not sure how anyone can excuse that away.
-
I dunno. He yells at the kid to put his effen hands up. The kid tosses the gun and puts his hands up. The officer fires anyway.
Adding, that the gun toss was behind the fence .. so the cop (and camera) don't see the gun being tossed. The 13 year old's arm is obscured behind the fence until it's raised.
So the officer has what, maybe .5 of a second to decide, does this guy have a gun or not?
Robocop, we need you.
-
Tough job, 'topper. That we agree on. Shooting a 13-year-old who has put his hands up after you tell him to doesn't make it easier.
-
The cop told the kid to stop, drop the weapon and raise his hands. The kid stopped, dropped the weapon and raised his hands. The cop shot him anyhow.
That's the key to me. Why the hell would you tell him to do that if you're gonna shoot him either way?
It's definitely a tough job, but you still don't shoot first and ask questions later.
-
*fart noises* rtft
Amazing insight. Please tell us more.
-
That's the key to me. Why the hell would you tell him to do that if you're gonna shoot him either way?
It's definitely a tough job, but you still don't shoot first and ask questions later.
It’s a horrible situation all around, but I watched the video and paused a few times. When Toledo turns around, his hands are still mostly down, it honestly looks like they go up as he gets shot. So in the heat of the moment, the officer didn’t see the gun get tossed and assumed he was turning with a gun still in hand. As Toledo gets shot he sees the hands are empty which is why he immediately rushes to him.
I’m not trying to justify it, but I sort of see it.
-
Amazing insight. Please tell us more.
Ooohhhh spicy, you've typed 6 things on this board since 3/31 and they were all replies to something I typed. I apologize for triggering you so often you don't have much else to think about!
Rent free.
-
It’s a horrible situation all around, but I watched the video and paused a few times. When Toledo turns around, his hands are still mostly down, it honestly looks like they go up as he gets shot. So in the heat of the moment, the officer didn’t see the gun get tossed and assumed he was turning with a gun still in hand. As Toledo gets shot he sees the hands are empty which is why he immediately rushes to him.
I’m not trying to justify it, but I sort of see it.
I have a higher level of expectation for police use of force than he "assumed he was turning with a gun still in his hand."
-
Adding, that the gun toss was behind the fence .. so the cop (and camera) don't see the gun being tossed. The 13 year old's arm is obscured behind the fence until it's raised.
So the officer has what, maybe .5 of a second to decide, does this guy have a gun or not?
Robocop, we need you.
So the assumption is that everyone has a gun and is going to shoot you unless you are absolutely sure you don't see it?
-
So the assumption is that everyone has a gun and is going to shoot you unless you are absolutely sure you don't see it?
"COMPLY"
"NO NOT LIKE THAT"
-
This man wasn't shot, or tased or even pepper sprayed. Weird.
MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Hutchinson police say a 61-year-old man is in custody after allegedly dragging an officer with his vehicle while simultaneously striking him with a hammer following a dispute about face masks at a Menards store.
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/04/14/police-man-drags-hutchinson-officer-with-car-hits-him-with-hammer-after-face-mask-dispute/
-
And Kyle Rittenhouse can run by cops carrying an AR-15 after shooting two people and not be noticed. Hell, some whack-jobs want to build a statue of him.
-
I have a higher level of expectation for police use of force than he "assumed he was turning with a gun still in his hand."
You're not wrong. And again, I said it was terrible. But "someone running with a gun and turns with his hands not visible" is different than the MacDonald shooting or lighting up someone unarmed when they reach for a wallet.
-
You're not wrong. And again, I said it was terrible. But "someone running with a gun and turns with his hands not visible" is different than the MacDonald shooting or lighting up someone unarmed when they reach for a wallet.
I agree with this. The officer made the wrong call in under a second. I think the officer was too much on jumpy side but compared to some of the other tragedies this one, where there actually was a gun present, doesn't warrant as much sympathy from me.
I hope they can figure out a way to charge the 22yr old as an accessory because he put the gun in a 13yr olds hand. I would like to think that if that man doesn't put the kid in that situation the officer doesn't shoot.
-
Just watched the video. Jesus. Society failed Adam Toledo.
-
The question that begs to be asked is, why is a 13 yo out at 2:30 am with a gun? Where are his parents in all this? Perhaps they failed him? #tragic
-
If you look at any specific situation you can micro analyze it to make you feel comfortable with the action of the police:
- bad day
- mistake
- not enough time to react
- bad parents
- why run?
- need to comply
But if you justify every killing against POC by police by micro analyzing every situation and don't look at the wholistic problem that POC are treated demonstrably worse it adds up to one thing.......you just don't care that it happens. Period.
"but that isn't true, of course I care. how dare you say that?" Admit that it's a problem specifically for Black and other POC communities, hold the police accountable, be open to real police reform and support programs to change Black communities. Without acknowledgment and being open to real change it's 100% lip service to claim you care.
-
The question that begs to be asked is, why is a 13 yo out at 2:30 am with a gun? Where are his parents in all this? Perhaps they failed him? #tragic
No doubt. Society includes his parents, and they’re on the hook too.
-
The question that begs to be asked is, why is a 13 yo out at 2:30 am with a gun? Where are his parents in all this? Perhaps they failed him? #tragic
https://www.chicagoreporter.com/the-plunder-of-black-wealth-in-chicago-captured-in-film/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2roWLzrqOjQ
Here's a good start. We can provide more if you want to learn about how we got to where we are now. The good news, is that all of us can be part of undoing the wrongs of the past if we want to.
The bottom line is we have all failed Adam Toledo.
-
The question that begs to be asked is, why is a 13 yo out at 2:30 am with a gun? Where are his parents in all this? Perhaps they failed him? #tragic
Always a way to blame the victim.
-
The question that begs to be asked is, why is a 13 yo out at 2:30 am with a gun? Where are his parents in all this? Perhaps they failed him? #tragic
But Kyle Rittenhouse is a national hero.
-
If you look at any specific situation you can micro analyze it to make you feel comfortable with the action of the police:
- bad day
- mistake
- not enough time to react
- bad parents
- why run?
- need to comply
But if you justify every killing against POC by police by micro analyzing every situation and don't look at the wholistic problem that POC are treated demonstrably worse it adds up to one thing.......you just don't care that it happens. Period.
"but that isn't true, of course I care. how dare you say that?" Admit that it's a problem specifically for Black and other POC communities, hold the police accountable, be open to real police reform and support programs to change Black communities. Without acknowledgment and being open to real change it's 100% lip service to claim you care.
As I explained earlier, I have seen over and over persons of African American descent treated more harshly and less humanely than Caucasians. That's just a fact.
That said, and that's a big reality, we need to address the problem not by anecdotal information but by saying, OK, where do we start? Police officers are mostly descent people and a product of their training, environment and expectations. If they're trained and managed by jackasses who are bigoted, then guess what, they're bigoted too.
Some questions worthy of intelligent discussion:
1) How do we train police officers?
2) What educational expectations do we have?
3) What do we expect them to do?
a) Should we have specializations within departments to make sure things like domestic disputes, racial differences, social differences, etc., are adequately addressed?
4) Are police paid enough?
5) Do we have enough Hispanics and African Americans on most police forces?
a) What happens when forces are representative of their communities?
The ironic thing is I believe we're back in the 1960s. Baby boomers had much the same attitude about police officers. Certainly, African-Americans baby boomers felt the same way about police. After 50 years, you'd think we would have learned something.
This is from 1968-1969 and it sounds a lot like today. A bit on the racist stereotype side but, as the dialogue shows, things haven't changed much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdHkGPuKZc
-
But Kyle Rittenhouse is a national hero.
Some think so: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/us-police-officers-public-officials-crowdfunding-website-data-breach
-
As I explained earlier, I have seen over and over persons of African American descent treated more harshly and less humanely than Caucasians. That's just a fact.
That said, and that's a big reality, we need to address the problem not by anecdotal information but by saying, OK, where do we start? Police officers are mostly descent people and a product of their training, environment and expectations. If they're trained and managed by jackasses who are bigoted, then guess what, they're bigoted too.
Some questions worthy of intelligent discussion:
1) How do we train police officers?
2) What educational expectations do we have?
3) What do we expect them to do?
a) Should we have specializations within departments to make sure things like domestic disputes, racial differences, social differences, etc., are adequately addressed?
4) Are police paid enough?
5) Do we have enough Hispanics and African Americans on most police forces?
a) What happens when forces are representative of their communities?
The ironic thing is I believe we're back in the 1960s. Baby boomers had much the same attitude about police officers. Certainly, African-Americans baby boomers felt the same way about police. After 50 years, you'd think we would have learned something.
This is from 1968-1969 and it sounds a lot like today. A bit on the racist stereotype side but, as the dialogue shows, things haven't changed much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdHkGPuKZc
Agree with all of this - the key component to getting anything changed is confronting the fact that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.
Regarding the Dragnet clip (Muggs - don't watch to the end. They don't disparage a sea mammal but it'll trigger you) the cultural references I use to show that not much changes are that Killing In The Name and F*ck The Police came out in '91 and '88, but the fact that the issue hit prime time TV in '68 speaks volumes to the lack of progress.
-
Looks like the police are having a great time. Macing press camera crews while live is a fantastic look for them.
Then they used tear gas, against a ban that prohibited tear gas in the city. They are now openly disobeying the laws they were meant to uphold.
(https://i.redd.it/357q3h7uept61.jpg)
-
Looks like the police are having a great time. Macing press camera crews while live is a fantastic look for them.
Then they used tear gas, against a ban that prohibited tear gas in the city. They are now openly disobeying the laws they were meant to uphold.
(https://i.redd.it/357q3h7uept61.jpg)
Effen pathetic.
-
If you watched any of the interview Chris Cuomo did with Catanzara of the Chicago Police Union, you'd understand why we are where we are with policing in America.
https://www.mediaite.com/crime/president-of-chicago-police-union-says-shooting-of-adam-toledo-was-100-justified-that-officers-actions-were-actually-heroic/?jwsource=cl
*trigger warning Chris Cuomo
-
If you watched any of the interview Chris Cuomo did with Catanzara of the Chicago Police Union, you'd understand why we are where we are with policing in America.
https://www.mediaite.com/crime/president-of-chicago-police-union-says-shooting-of-adam-toledo-was-100-justified-that-officers-actions-were-actually-heroic/?jwsource=cl
*trigger warning Chris Cuomo
Catanzara is a Q Anon nut. They should have been classified as a terrorist organization, but they're too deeply embedded in the GOP at this point. The FBI having published a report calling QAnon a potential source of domestic terrorism is not far enough, imo.
-
Good article on reducing number of traffic stops.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/end-needless-interaction-with-cops-during-traffic-stops/490412/
-
The question that begs to be asked is, why is a 13 yo out at 2:30 am with a gun? Where are his parents in all this? Perhaps they failed him? #tragic
a 13-year-old kid who had just fired eight+ shots at a moving car which is why the police were called.
-
a 13-year-old kid who had just fired eight+ shots at a moving car which is why the police were called.
This isn't at all true.
-
a 13-year-old kid who had just fired eight+ shots at a moving car which is why the police were called.
Oh wow. This is just objectively false. Try a different method of rationalization.
-
a 13-year-old kid who had just fired eight+ shots at a moving car which is why the police were called.
Bro... come on...
-
But Kyle Rittenhouse is a national hero.
you gotta change that name bro. it reeks of fraud and racism. it doesn't do justice to our african american people-they're getting used, mislead and ripped off. please stop supporting a cause that is divisive at very least. they could care less about the police shootings except that there's gold in them thar hills-very sad. the people who really need the help ain't getting it from BLM
-
you gotta change that name bro. it reeks of fraud and racism. it doesn't do justice to our african american people-they're getting used, mislead and ripped off. please stop supporting a cause that is divisive at very least. they could care less about the police shootings except that there's gold in them thar hills-very sad. the people who really need the help ain't getting it from BLM
Movement and LLC are 2 different things. Did you know that?
-
I am curious what my Democrat friends here think about Maxine Waters? Because apparently the Minny judge (Democrat) absolutely pummeled her today and her ignominious behavior.
-
I am curious what my Democrat friends here think about Maxine Waters? Because apparently the Minny judge (Democrat) absolutely pummeled her today and her ignominious behavior.
Dumb for her to make comments right now.
-
Dumb for her to make comments right now.
I think it goes beyond dumb but ty for your honesty.
-
I am curious what my Democrat friends here think about Maxine Waters? Because apparently the Minny judge (Democrat) absolutely pummeled her today and her ignominious behavior.
Maxine Waters us a doofus.
-
Maxine Waters us a doofus.
She defended the riots in South Central 30 years ago. It’s just what she does. And when Pelosi defends her, she keeps doing it. Doofus is a good assessment
-
Maxine Waters us a doofus.
Ty. How in the world is this defensible by anyone?
-
Dumb for her to make comments right now.
Agreed. Quite simple. She's making things worse not better.
Ty. How in the world is this defensible by anyone?
Because too many people care more about politics than principles.
-
Agreed. Quite simple. She's making things worse not better.
Because too many people care more about politics than principles.
Especially in Congress
-
Agreed. Quite simple. She's making things worse not better.
Because too many people care more about politics than principles.
Yup. It's embarrassing and sad.
-
I think it goes beyond dumb but ty for your honesty.
Usually Democrats call out bad behavior on their own side. Usually, though admittedly not always.
Republicans almost never do.
See: Drumpf, Donald J.
-
Usually Democrats call out bad behavior on their own side. Usually, though admittedly not always.
Republicans almost never do.
See: Drumpf, Donald J.
I agree Republicans should have called out Trump but I was appalled by Pelosi's comments today.
-
Thankfully, we whined some about dopey Maxine Waters to deflect from Billy's lies about the 13-year-old and rocket's typical rocketness.
Here's hoping Chauvin gets convicted and gets the maximum sentence allowed.
-
Thankfully, we whined some about dopey Maxine Waters to deflect from Billy's lies about the 13-year-old and rocket's typical rocketness.
Here's hoping Chauvin gets convicted and gets the maximum sentence allowed.
Do you think people will be "satisfied" with the verdict if he's convicted on all charges assuming Waters didn't cause an automatic appeal or mistrial? Or will there be violence regardless of the verdict?
Here's what I noticed having just watched the summations: The prosecutor was excellent and the defense lawyer was solid as well. There is no such thing as a slam dunk verdict. But the prosecutor not a single time invoked race as having anything to do with this particular case , nor did he condemn police departments..
As far as I know race was never mentioned at all during the entire trial. This is about right and wrong, period. The vast, vast, vast, majority of people at the very minimum, agree Chauvin was guilty of excessive force (manslaughter) which led to the death of Mr. Floyd. I think all of us hope he's convicted on all charges but that won't necessarily please the protesters and rioters. Unfortunately the fact that this case wasn't moved to a different venue, and you have people like Maxine Waters saying asinine things in the streets, this is potentially a fking nightmare. And the Governor of Minnesota, proved in his comments as well, that he's a complete asshead..
-
Do you think people will be "satisfied" with the verdict if he's convicted on all charges assuming Waters didn't cause an automatic appeal or mistrial? Or will there be violence regardless of the verdict?
Waters' comments, as dumb as they be, are not grounds for a mistrial. And while one can appeal based on virtually anything, there's no real merit there.
-
Waters' comments, as dumb as they be, are not grounds for a mistrial. And while one can appeal based on virtually anything, there's no real merit there.
I hope you're right but nothing would surprise me.
-
What's the max this scumbag can get if convicted on all three charges? I'm a little confused looking st past precedent.
-
Thankfully, we whined some about dopey Maxine Waters to deflect from Billy's lies about the 13-year-old and rocket's typical rocketness.
Here's hoping Chauvin gets convicted and gets the maximum sentence allowed.
Lies, eh? Oh, the kid had a fresh Latin Kings tattoo.
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/man-who-was-with-13-year-old-the-night-he-was-shot-killed-by-chicago-police-is-back-in-custody
Prosecutors said Toledo's hand tested positive for gunshot residue and that a Ruger 9MM was found next to where he died.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/prosecutor-failed-to-fully-inform-himself-in-adam-toledo-shooting-office-says/2487439/
https://abc7.com/adam-toledo-shooting-video-chicago-police-13-year-old-shot/10522605/
Nearby surveillance video shows 21-year-old Ruben Roman shooting at a passing vehicle with Toledo by his side, according to prosecutors in a bond hearing for Roman. Roman and Toledo then are said to have ducked into an alley, where officers found them shortly after.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2720578/adam-toledo-chicago-shooting-latin-kings/
-
This isn't at all true.
https://abc7chicago.com/officer-eric-stillman-chicago-police-who-shot-adam-toledo-misconduct-shooting-video/10520526/
Maybe doing research to find out what really happened is a positive thing, not just listening to a network who admits they’re in the tank for BLM. It’s what I learned at MU.
-
Billy, none of the links you posted say what you wrote. You wrote:
a 13-year-old kid who had just fired eight+ shots at a moving car
None of these links support that. In fact, they say that the 21 year old suspect was the one who fired eight+ shots at a moving car. That is the lie people are referring to.
-
https://abc7chicago.com/officer-eric-stillman-chicago-police-who-shot-adam-toledo-misconduct-shooting-video/10520526/
Maybe doing research to find out what really happened is a positive thing, not just listening to a network who admits they’re in the tank for BLM. It’s what I learned at MU.
The story you link and quote above says video evidence shows the adult who was with Adam Toledo fired shots, not the kid.
What you posted is false.
As for the rest of your nonsense, so what? This was a seventh grader with a learning disability, growing up in a poor, gang-infested community lacking the resources needed for someone like him. He fell in with and was taken advantage of by an adult criminal.
That you would use that to justify that he was shot dead with his arms raised in surrender is really effed up, man.
-
Do you think people will be "satisfied" with the verdict if he's convicted on all charges assuming Waters didn't cause an automatic appeal or mistrial?
I can’t answer for or predict the satisfaction level of “people,” Muggs.
There won’t be a mistrial because of what Waters said. Very unlikely that an appeal based on what a politician said will succeed.
Lots of folks who shrugged off (or even applauded) idiotic, hateful, abhorrent, divisive (etc) comments from the previous leader of the free world sure seem bent out of shape about Waters. Not saying you, Muggs, because I don’t know.
-
I can’t answer for or predict the satisfaction level of “people,” Muggs.
There won’t be a mistrial because of what Waters said. Very unlikely that an appeal based on what a politician said will succeed.
Lots of folks who shrugged off (or even applauded) idiotic, hateful, abhorrent, divisive (etc) comments from the previous leader of the free world sure seem bent out of shape about Waters. Not saying you, Muggs, because I don’t know.
My take is based on what the judge specifically said about her comments.
-
My take is based on what the judge specifically said about her comments.
Sure, but the same judge who made those comments also denied a mistrial. He was just venting (understandably, but not appropriately) yet when push came to shove, he knew there was no legal basis for a mistrial.
-
It was a dumb thing to say.
However, the current bar for stupidity and inciting more stupidity is insurrection and storming the capital looking for congressmen and the VP to abduct.
-
Ty. How in the world is this defensible by anyone?
Would you like to relitigate the last 4 years considering who the President was?
She shouldn't probably have said anything, but let's not pretend she was the first politician to wade into the middle of a situation like this.
-
Sure, but the same judge who made those comments also denied a mistrial. He was just venting (understandably, but not appropriately) yet when push came to shove, he knew there was no legal basis for a mistrial.
What he also basically said is "be sure to bring this up when you appeal."
I think it was remarkable that the judge mentioned the comments at all. Simply bringing them up implies they've had an impact. Very careless. Wait until the trial is over and then address the comments if they have him that worked up.
-
If he doesn't get the max (which I guess is 40 yrs) it's not going to be pretty. And it may still be a s-show if he does because we know this will be appealed. I thought the prosecutor was very strong in his summation and hope everybody listened to it. Because again he tried the facts of case, not a narrative. From what I saw this was a positive representation of our legal system from both sides.
-
For the sake of clarity, the 13 year old did have gunshot residue on his hands .. so while video shows the 21 year old shooting into passing cars .. Toledo shot at least once.
(https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/man-who-was-with-13-year-old-the-night-he-was-shot-killed-by-chicago-police-is-back-in-custody)
I'm not sure how anyone wouldn't be terrified of the reality that these two guys were shooting into moving cars, targeted or random souls driving down the street.
-
It was a dumb thing to say.
However, the current bar for stupidity and inciting more stupidity is insurrection and storming the capital looking for congressmen and the VP to abduct.
And it was stupid to fly there with a security team while simultaneously attacking police. I don't recall me defending Trump's behavior......basically ever Tower.
-
If he doesn't get the max (which I guess is 40 yrs) it's not going to be pretty. And it may still be a s-show if he does because we know this will be appealed. I thought the prosecutor was very strong in his summation and hope everybody listened to it. Because again he tried the facts of case, not a narrative. From what I saw this was a positive representation of our legal system from both sides.
I agree. Within the courtroom, all the key players - prosecution, defense and judge - represented our legal system admirably. People might disagree with the interpretation presented at closing arguments (especially by the defense), but they were all doing their jobs.
The outside comments by Waters and other elected officials have been inexcusable.
That said, I think it is highly unlikely that the verdict is overturned on appeal or by declaring a mistrial.
-
For the sake of clarity, the 13 year old did have gunshot residue on his hands .. so while video shows the 21 year old shooting into passing cars .. Toledo shot at least once.
(https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/man-who-was-with-13-year-old-the-night-he-was-shot-killed-by-chicago-police-is-back-in-custody)
I'm not sure how anyone wouldn't be terrified of the reality that these two guys were shooting into moving cars, targeted or random souls driving down the street.
For the sake of clarity, this isn't true.
Having gunshot residue on you is not conclusive evidence you fired a gun. It also could mean you were near someone when they fired a gun (which Adam Toledo was), handled a gun which recently had been fired (which Adam Toledo did), or was touched by someone who had recently fired a gun (which Adam Toledo was). Keep in mind, the cop who shot him then touched him immediately afterward, which would have transferred GSR.
There's plenty of evidence that GSR was transferred to the kid by means other than him firing a gun. There is zero evidence or claim by any law enforcement agency that he fired a gun .
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/gsrstillviable.html
As for being terrified of the reality ... imagine being a child growing up in a neighborhood where that kind of thing happens, and the only time anyone outside the neighborhood notices is when they use it to paint you as a dangerous criminal.
-
For the sake of clarity, this isn't true.
Having gunshot residue on you is not conclusive evidence you fired a gun. It also could mean you were near someone when they fired a gun (which Adam Toledo was), handled a gun which recently had been fired (which Adam Toledo did), or was touched by someone who had recently fired a gun (which Adam Toledo was). Keep in mind, the cop who shot him then touched him immediately afterward, which would have transferred GSR.
There's plenty of evidence that GSR was transferred to the kid by means other than him firing a gun. There is zero evidence or claim by any law enforcement agency that he fired a gun .
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/gsrstillviable.html
As for being terrified of the reality ... imagine being a child growing up in a neighborhood where that kind of thing happens, and the only time anyone outside the neighborhood notices is when they use it to paint you as a dangerous criminal.
Yeah anyone firing guns into traffic randomly is a dangerous criminal at any age. I mean he's young but by 7th grade you've got an understanding of life & death you aren't a kid with blurred lines of imagination and reality.
-
Yeah anyone firing guns into traffic randomly is a dangerous criminal at any age. I mean he's young but by 7th grade you've got an understanding of life & death you aren't a kid with blurred lines of imagination and reality.
1. There is zero evidence the kid fired a gun.
2. Science says you're wrong about what a 7th grader does and doesn't understand.
Every parent of a teenager is familiar with the special behavior that puberty seems to induce – mood swings, slammed doors, rash decisions. Parents often blame such erratic temperament on surging adolescent hormones, but it turns out that the brain has something to do with it, too.
Specifically, a teen's prefrontal cortex – the piece of brain right behind the forehead that is involved in complex decision making – is not capable of the kind of reasoning that allows most grown-ups to make rational decisions.
https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/10/16_neurolaw.shtml
And remember, this was a 13-year-old with an established learning disability, so he was even further behind in his mental development than most kids that age.
Honestly, it's getting kind of gross watching people to portray a child with a learning disability as some kind of hardened gang banger to rationalize his killing.
-
What he also basically said is "be sure to bring this up when you appeal."
I think it was remarkable that the judge mentioned the comments at all. Simply bringing them up implies they've had an impact. Very careless. Wait until the trial is over and then address the comments if they have him that worked up.
Actually, I don't believe the judge brought up the comments until the defense attorney raised them when he requested a mistrial.It was a dumb thing to say.
However, the current bar for stupidity and inciting more stupidity is insurrection and storming the capital looking for congressmen and the VP to abduct.
Right. Trump wasn't the one who made the comments so why would anyone think there's anything wrong with Auntie Max's rhetoric, other than it was a dumb thing to say? No one's going to actually act upon her comments....right? And if they do, it isn't her fault.
-
Actually, I don't believe the judge brought up the comments until the defense attorney raised them when he requested a mistrial.Right. Trump wasn't the one who made the comments so why would anyone think there's anything wrong with Auntie Max's rhetoric, other than it was a dumb thing to say? No one's going to actually act upon her comments....right? And if they do, it isn't her fault.
He could have said they were irrelevant to the case instead of the diatribe and left it at that.
-
1. There is zero evidence the kid fired a gun.
2. Science says you're wrong about what a 7th grader does and doesn't understand.
Every parent of a teenager is familiar with the special behavior that puberty seems to induce – mood swings, slammed doors, rash decisions. Parents often blame such erratic temperament on surging adolescent hormones, but it turns out that the brain has something to do with it, too.
Specifically, a teen's prefrontal cortex – the piece of brain right behind the forehead that is involved in complex decision making – is not capable of the kind of reasoning that allows most grown-ups to make rational decisions.
https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/10/16_neurolaw.shtml
And remember, this was a 13-year-old with an established learning disability, so he was even further behind in his mental development than most kids that age.
Honestly, it's getting kind of gross watching people to portray a child with a learning disability as some kind of hardened gang banger to rationalize his killing.
1. There's circumstantial evidence, but you're right there's no definitive proof.
2. You're right, they're still in development and prone to irrational emotional decisions, that being said I didn't say they weren't I said they understood life & death and consequently that a gun can cause death.
3. Do we know what the learning disability is? Because let's say it's ADHD, yeah I'm not feeling sympathetic as I made it this far with that plus Tourette's and OCD without shooting a gun into the street. If it's a developmental learning disability, then I'm more inclined to feel sympathy.
4. Speaking from personal experience, a learning disability is not a get out of jail free card. If it's a developmental disability then by all means it's terrible. But theres a million learning disabilities out there that also don't effective your decision making.
If anything, your statement on growing up in a neighborhood where it happens everyday and the impact of that on his life resonated with me more than excusing it away with unspecified learning disability.
-
4. Speaking from personal experience, a learning disability is not a get out of jail free card. If it's a developmental disability then by all means it's terrible. But theres a million learning disabilities out there that also don't effective your decision making.
Well he won't be getting out of jail free
-
Well he won't be getting out of jail free
Dark but true. And I'm not trying to victim blame, entirely. At the end of the day there's loads of truly horrific unjustifiable police shootings and of the many this one is considerably lower on the priority list unless you're only watching the video in extreme slow motion.
But a 7th grade life was lost which in itself is a true tragedy.
-
3. Do we know what the learning disability is? Because let's say it's ADHD, yeah I'm not feeling sympathetic as I made it this far with that plus Tourette's and OCD without shooting a gun into the street. If it's a developmental learning disability, then I'm more inclined to feel sympathy.
I haven't seen any specification of his LD, but it was something that caused him from an early age to be placed in a separate special education classroom with just six other students. That kind of severe intervention typically isn't done for a minor LD, something like ADHD, in which inclusion is standard pracice.
Just to be clear, I'm not disregarding the fact the kid was by his own volition in a bad spot that night. But he was a child with a disability thrust into a situation well beyond his full comprehension, not a hardened gang banger with a history of violence.
Honestly, one can argue, if they want, that this cop was thrust into an equally difficult situation and the shooting was a tragedy, not a crime. You don't need to demonize a child - or lie about him, as some have - to make that argument.
-
Actually, I don't believe the judge brought up the comments until the defense attorney raised them when he requested a mistrial.Right. Trump wasn't the one who made the comments so why would anyone think there's anything wrong with Auntie Max's rhetoric, other than it was a dumb thing to say? No one's going to actually act upon her comments....right? And if they do, it isn't her fault.
Is Auntie Max related to Auntie Jemima?
May try to not be so overtly racist?
-
Is Auntie Max related to Auntie Jemima?
May try to not be so overtly racist?
He didn't come up with it. Google Auntie Maxine and look at the articles from the LATimes, and Buzzfeed, and Jezebel. Its a moniker that was originally bestowed on her by adoring supporters. Same with people calling Lori Lightfoot "Auntie Lori".
-
I haven't seen any specification of his LD, but it was something that caused him from an early age to be placed in a separate special education classroom with just six other students. That kind of severe intervention typically isn't done for a minor LD, something like ADHD, in which inclusion is standard pracice.
Just to be clear, I'm not disregarding the fact the kid was by his own volition in a bad spot that night. But he was a child with a disability thrust into a situation well beyond his full comprehension, not a hardened gang banger with a history of violence.
Honestly, one can argue, if they want, that this cop was thrust into an equally difficult situation and the shooting was a tragedy, not a crime. You don't need to demonize a child - or lie about him, as some have - to make that argument.
I assume you've heard of "little yummies" before? Now I'm not making light of this kid's disability or the tragedy but it's important to know that there are young kids in Chicago that are entrenched in gangs and gang violence. Denzel Washington has talked about this in depth."It starts in the home" and "it starts well before they are incarcerated" or the "system" takes root.
-
I assume you've heard of "little yummies" before? Now I'm not making light of this kid's disability or the tragedy but it's important to know that there are young kids in Chicago that are entrenched in gangs and gang violence. Denzel Washington has talked about this in depth."It starts in the home" and "it starts well before they are incarcerated" or the "system" takes root.
Is this a Matt Gaetz Venmo phrase?
-
Is Auntie Max related to Auntie Jemima?
May try to not be so overtly racist?
As Wags said, I'm not the one who came up with it. In addition to others bestowing it on her, as Wags said, she literally called herself this yesterday. But thanks for injecting a claim for racism where it doesn't exist.
-
As Wags said, I'm not the one who came up with it. In addition to others bestowing it on her, as Wags said, she literally called herself this yesterday. But thanks for injecting a claim for racism where it doesn't exist.
So she's racist!
-
I assume you've heard of "little yummies" before? Now I'm not making light of this kid's disability or the tragedy but it's important to know that there are young kids in Chicago that are entrenched in gangs and gang violence. Denzel Washington has talked about this in depth."It starts in the home" and "it starts well before they are incarcerated" or the "system" takes root.
So, what's your point exactly? That this child is somehow to blame for his death because he didn't grow up with certain privileges?
Adam Toledo, just like Yummy Sandifer, didn't choose his parents, his neighborhood or the circumstances of his birth. He didn't choose a learning disability that led his schools to separate him from other kids. He didn't choose to grow up in an environment that made him susceptible to being taken advantage of by an adult criminal.
The lengths some are going to rationalize this are insane.
-
Chauvin verdict is in ...
-
Chauvin verdict is in ...
And contrary to what POTUS says, the "Right" Verdict is the one that the jury gives us, not what he thinks it is.
-
And contrary to what POTUS says, the "Right" Verdict is the one that the jury gives us, not what he thinks it is.
Nah. Juries can get it wrong (see: OJ Simpson, Emmitt Till).
-
Nah. Juries can get it wrong (see: OJ Simpson, Emmitt Till).
You implying OJ was guilty?! Man the glove didn't fit!
-
Nah. Juries can get it wrong (see: OJ Simpson, Emmitt Till).
Very true. POTUS rarely gets involved, however.
-
Nah. Juries can get it wrong (see: OJ Simpson, Emmitt Till).
It's still the legal system we've got in place and up to them to reach a verdict, not the sitting President who unlike the jurors wasn't in the courtroom during the trial, nor has he heard or read 100% of the evidence.
-
It's still the legal system we've got in place and up to them to reach a verdict, not the sitting President who unlike the jurors wasn't in the courtroom during the trial, nor has he heard or read 100% of the evidence.
So, you don't really mean it when you say that whatever the jury decides is the "right" verdict. You're just mad that Biden gave his opinion.
Got it.
-
It's still the legal system we've got in place and up to them to reach a verdict, not the sitting President who unlike the jurors wasn't in the courtroom during the trial, nor has he heard or read 100% of the evidence.
I admire how much you value the integrity of the courts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-lawsuits-election-results-2020-11.
-
I admire how much you value the integrity of the courts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-lawsuits-election-results-2020-11.
I lol'd nice one
-
So, you don't really mean it when you say that whatever the jury decides is the "right" verdict. You're just mad that Biden gave his opinion.
Got it.
Can the jury get it "wrong"? It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.
-
For the sake of clarity, this isn't true.
Having gunshot residue on you is not conclusive evidence you fired a gun.
Fair enough. Let's wait and see what the particle count on his hands ends up being, as your link suggests.
-
Guilty on all charges.
-
Guilty on all charges.
Good.
-
Can the jury get it "wrong"? It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.
You’re calling THIS president reckless? OK then.
-
Guilty on all charges.
Bam.
Hopefully this will make this evening pretty tame.
-
Can the jury get it "wrong"? It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.
It would be better if he had kept his opinion to himself.
But it's not like he leveled personal attacks on numerous judges - going so far as to question the citizenship and loyalty to America of one - when they issue a ruling he doesn't like. That would really be repulsive and reckless, don't you think?
-
The judge revoking his bail and then getting to see him cuffed and led away...that was satisfying.
-
Can the jury get it "wrong"? It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.
LOL, calm down dude. This was clearly the right verdict. The President can express his opinion just like anyone else.
-
Bam.
Hopefully this will make this evening pretty tame.
Hopefully this is a turning of the page where individuals are held responsible for their actions and the scales of justice don't have a thumb on them. Maintain that over a long period of time and most evenings should be tame. But one verdict does not resolve the issue.
-
Can the jury get it "wrong"? It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.
With the endless coverage of the trial and the blow by blow detail of defense expert witnesses not looking strong in cross examination, it is pretty reasonable that any citizen, especially POTUS could realize the correct verdict. We were able to hear / read everything the jury was given. And I would imagine POTUS has a few lawyers around him who can interpret testimony and give counsel.
We don't need to take sides on everything. Can we just agree every once in awhile? This one seemed cut and dry.
-
Hopefully this is a turning of the page where individuals are held responsible for their actions and the scales of justice don't have a thumb on them. Maintain that over a long period of time and most evenings should be tame. But one verdict does not resolve the issue.
It won't resolve "the issue" which you are talking about because this case was never about race. Nor was Kenosha, Louisville, Ferguson, the Toledo shooting in Chicago, and countless others. It was about Chauvin's criminal behavior which led to him committing assault and killing a man. Race wasn't invoked once by the prosecutor, and nor was systemic police racism to his credit.
-
You’re calling THIS president reckless? OK then.
Two things can be true at once.
The first is that a president, other than Biden, could have made reckless comments about something in the past. Not sure why that matters because I was only commenting on Biden. The second is that Biden made some reckless comments about this verdict before it was announced.
Reading's a skill, hey?
-
It won't resolve "the issue" which you are talking about because this case was never about race. Nor was Kenosha, Louisville, Ferguson, the Toledo shooting in Chicago, and countless others. It was about Chauvin's criminal behavior which led to him committing assault and killing a man. Race wasn't invoked once by the prosecutor nor systemic police racism to his credit.
Oof.
-
Two things can be true at once.
The first is that a president, other than Biden, could have made reckless comments about something in the past. Not sure why that matters because I was only commenting on Biden. The second is that Biden made some reckless comments about this verdict before it was announced.
Reading's a skill, hey?
What Biden said was imbecilic. Isn't he a lawyer? Trump's dumb comments in the past doesn't have anything to do with how stupid Biden has always been.
-
It was the correct verdict because that is what the jury concluded. It also would not have been the wrong verdict if they had concluded anything else. I hope people feel closure and that justice was served in this case. Excited for a peaceful night (except in Portland which is a given) as Antifa/BLM would have been out in full force for days on end with anything less than this verdict. That wouldn’t have been good for anyone, so hopefully we can now look forward as a country.
-
We don't need to take sides on everything. Can we just agree every once in awhile? This one seemed cut and dry.
Actually Lens, I couldn't agree more with your comment. And based on what I've seen and read, I agree with the verdict. But I don't agree that a sitting president or US representative should chime in before the verdict, especially when the climate is so hostile.
-
It won't resolve "the issue" which you are talking about because this case was never about race.
Holy sh*t.
-
Never forget what Minneapolis police wanted everyone to believe.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzcrJJcWQAAW9jj?format=jpg&name=medium
-
It was the correct verdict because that is what the jury concluded. It also would not have been the wrong verdict if they had concluded anything else. I hope people feel closure and that justice was served in this case. Excited for a peaceful night (except in Portland which is a given) as Antifa/BLM would have been out in full force for days on end with anything less than this verdict. That wouldn’t have been good for anyone, so hopefully we can now look forward as a country.
+1
-
Oof.
So if you tried this case you would have done it completely differently I imagine? If this case was about race or systemic racism within police depts.why didn't the prosecutor mention this a single time? That doesn't mean there are not racist cops, or that Chauvin isn't a racist, but that has absolutely zero to do with this case or verdict.
-
So if you tried this case you would have done it completely differently I imagine? If this case was about race or systemic racism within police depts.why didn't the prosecutor mention this a single time? That doesn't mean there are not racist cops, or that Chauvin isn't a racist, but that has absolutely zero ro do with this case or verdict.
Because "systemic racism" isn't a legal issue. It is a moral and ethical one. But to claim that it wasn't about race is....something.
-
It won't resolve "the issue" which you are talking about because this case was never about race. Nor was Kenosha, Louisville, Ferguson, the Toledo shooting in Chicago, and countless others. It was about Chauvin's criminal behavior which led to him committing assault and killing a man. Race wasn't invoked once by the prosecutor, and nor was systemic police racism to his credit.
we have a thread that gets bumped every time a cop kills an unarmed black man because it happens ALL THE TIME.
You're right, it was smart for the prosecution not to bring up race. In any specific situation, unless the person is hurling racial insults, it's easy to point to other motivations other than race and the defense team would've focused on that. That isn't because the system isn't pitted against the Black community, it clearly is and has been for decades/centuries, it's because the legal team is smart.
-
It was the correct verdict because that is what the jury concluded. It also would not have been the wrong verdict if they had concluded anything else.
Yes it would have. Good lord, some of you people twist yourselves into knots because God forbid the cops do something wrong.
-
It was the correct verdict because that is what the jury concluded. It also would not have been the wrong verdict if they had concluded anything else.
No. There is such a thing as a wrong verdict.
-
Because "systemic racism" isn't a legal issue. It is a moral and ethical one. But to claim that it wasn't about race is....something.
95% of unarmed citizens killed by cops are of one gender. Does that mean this is a systemic issue against males?
There are a disproportionate number of black citizens that get killed in this scenario. There is no question about it. But there are a myriad of other factors beyond race and many unarmed whites get killed by cops as well. Again, each case or situation is an entity in its own. They need to be properly tried through our legal system. To suggest that every time a white cop kills an unarmed citizen they are racist monsters is absurd.
Yes it would have. Good lord, some of you people twist yourselves into knots because God forbid the cops do something wrong.
[/quote]
-
To suggest that every time a white cop kills an unarmed citizen they are racist monsters is absurd.
Right. Which is why I never said that.
But if f you don’t think there is racial bias is policing, then I don’t know what to say other than “open your eyes.”
-
Actually Lens, I couldn't agree more with your comment. And based on what I've seen and read, I agree with the verdict. But I don't agree that a sitting president or US representative should chime in before the verdict, especially when the climate is so hostile.
Yes, now that we have a Democratic President, certain serious people are very, very worried that he follow the strictest protocol and norms. ::) ::) ::)
-
Right. Which is why I never said that.
But if f you don’t think there is racial bias is policing, then I don’t know what to say other than “open your eyes.”
I think there is police racial bias, especially with profiling and pulling people over. But when it comes to these particular high profile cases we do not know if race played any role in these situations. These aren't random people that have not committed crimes.
-
Yes, now that we have a Democratic President, certain serious people are very, very worried that he follow the strictest protocol and norms. ::) ::) ::)
You know, what Lens said ("We don't need to take sides on everything. Can we just agree every once in awhile? This one seemed cut and dry."), applies about Biden's comments too. Can we just agree that Biden shouldn't have commented before the verdict was announced?
-
Accountability, because a teenager had the courage and wherewithal to record it. Several video angles. Police officers willing to testify objectively for the prosecution. A prosecution that was willing to bring charges. A jury decided to honor what they saw and heard. A year of protests, and International Media coverage. It took all of that to get accountability for an injustice that didn't need to happen.
-
You know, what Lens said ("We don't need to take sides on everything. Can we just agree every once in awhile? This one seemed cut and dry."), applies about Biden's comments too. Can we just agree that Biden shouldn't have commented before the verdict was announced?
You go first: tell me how outraged you were with 4+ years of festering democracy-hating crapweasel statements from the former guy. Go into great detail how upset you were. I'll wait.
-
You know, what Lens said ("We don't need to take sides on everything. Can we just agree every once in awhile? This one seemed cut and dry."), applies about Biden's comments too. Can we just agree that Biden shouldn't have commented before the verdict was announced?
I think if you amend your statement to presidents in general so you're taking the hint yourself and not applying a double standard that was ignored previously then you'd have my support with this.
-
Accountability, because a teenager had the courage and wherewithal to record it. Several video angles. Police officers willing to testify objectively for the prosecution. A prosecution that was willing to bring charges. A jury decided to honor what they saw and heard. A year of protests, and International Media coverage. It took all of that to get accountability for an injustice that didn't need to happen.
Why do you think the media coverage, protesting, and rioting needed to happen for this verdict to be rendered? Could it just be that Chauvin was a scumbag cop who committed an assault and murder?
That he had about 18 complaints or something before this happened? Are you saying his actions are an every day occurrence among police depts? Could it be the jury looked at the facts of the case, provided by the videos and other testimony, and made their decision while the stuff on the periphery had no impact at all?
-
I think if you amend your statement to presidents in general so you're taking the hint yourself and not applying a double standard that was ignored previously then you'd have my support with this.
I did say that.
Actually Lens, I couldn't agree more with your comment. And based on what I've seen and read, I agree with the verdict. But I don't agree that a sitting president or US representative should chime in before the verdict, especially when the climate is so hostile.
I didn’t say only Biden. I said “ a sitting president.” I don’t care if it’s Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, on down the line. It’s reckless for any of them to chime in. But apparently, the fact that the statement applies to all sitting presidents, which includes Biden, made someone (not you Galway) more than a little butthurt.
-
I did say that.
I didn’t say only Biden. I said “ a sitting president.” I don’t care if it’s Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, on down the line. It’s reckless for any of them to chime in. But apparently, the fact that the statement applies to all sitting presidents, which includes Biden, made someone (not you Galway) more than a little butthurt.
I missed where you said a sitting president and only saw the posts where Biden was specified Mea culpa I agree with your point. After the verdicts read if he feels like he wants to have an opinion "the officer was over charged and the DA should know better" or "the officer was tried by his peers and found not guilty, this is American society" then by all means but grand standing beforehand is something I agree should not happen.
-
We all want to sit around and talk about how justice was served for people of color in America. This case does not show that. This was a case that was so so obvious that there could be no other verdict. Hundreds of millions of us saw Chauvin commit murder. The trial could not have turned out any other way in the 2020s.
There are still many, many men and women of color that have received no justice. We know all of the names. We know the police lied in many of those cases. Yet, justice never arrived for those people. Without video, we all know that George Floyd's family would NOT have received justice. The cops would have lied as they usually have when they murder a person of color.
When a cop murdered a 13 year old boy (with his hands in the air), the police report said that the cop was the victim. Police can continue to murder people of color just as they always have - they just have to make sure there are no cameras recording the event.
-
We all want to sit around and talk about how justice was served for people of color in America. This case does not show that. This was a case that was so so obvious that there could be no other verdict. Hundreds of millions of us saw Chauvin commit murder. The trial could not have turned out any other way in the 2020s.
There are still many, many men and women of color that have received no justice. We know all of the names. We know the police lied in many of those cases. Yet, justice never arrived for those people. Without video, we all know that George Floyd's family would NOT have received justice. The cops would have lied as they usually have when they murder a person of color.
When a cop murdered a 13 year old boy (with his hands in the air), the police report said that the cop was the victim. Police can continue to murder people of color just as they always have - they just have to make sure there are no cameras recording the event.
Do you think in the Toledo case, before the cop shot him, and had less than 1 sec to make a decision, he said to himself here's a great opportunity to kill a minority? Did he even know the race of this kid when he pulled the trigger?
-
I like that the judge immediately ended Chauvin's freedom and sent him to jail.
Chauvin is a flight risk, and he no doubt has friends who would help him escape.
Let him rot.
-
Do you think in the Toledo case, before the cop shot him, and had less than 1 sec to make a decision, he said to himself here's a great opportunity to kill a minority? Did he even know the race of this kid when he pulled the trigger?
Respectfully, this displays ignorance, willful or otherwise, of what people mean when they talk about racial disparities in policing.
When we talk about racism in policing, we're not talking about cops with pointy white hats and swastika tattoos going out of their way to harm people of color. Rather, we're talking about law enforcement policies, attitudes and the culture that lead to people of color being treated differently (and usually resulting in worse outcomes).
Several examples of this have been cited in this thread already.
Such as, why does a Black kid like Duante Wright get shot (or Tased, if that was the intent) for trying to flee from a traffic stop, but a white kid like Kyle Rittenhouse can shoot two people then walk down the street with an AR-15 and cops make no effort to stop him?
Why does a Black man get shot dead by police while shopping for a BB gun in Walmart, but just last week in suburban Chicago, a white man pointed a shotgun at police and threatened to kill him, and instead of reacting with deadly force, cops spent 6+ hours negotiating with him?
I'm not saying these cops are intentionally racist. They're very likely not. But there's something in their culture, training and attitude that often leads them to treat a Black person differently than a white person. That's the systemic racism people are talking about.
-
So if you tried this case you would have done it completely differently I imagine? If this case was about race or systemic racism within police depts.why didn't the prosecutor mention this a single time? That doesn't mean there are not racist cops, or that Chauvin isn't a racist, but that has absolutely zero to do with this case or verdict.
Bruh. The world is going to pass you by faster than the older guys around here. Educate yourself properly before it does, and join the rest of the world and understand that this case was 100% about race.
If George Flloyd was a white guy named Edward McClosky he wouldn't have been killed because he wouldn't have been treated the way he was. Are you seriously trying to make a claim like this? Are you out of your mind?
-
Respectfully, this displays ignorance, willful or otherwise, of what people mean when they talk about racial disparities in policing.
When we talk about racism in policing, we're not talking about cops with pointy white hats and swastika tattoos going out of their way to harm people of color. Rather, we're talking about law enforcement policies, attitudes and the culture that lead to people of color being treated differently (and usually resulting in worse outcomes).
Several examples of this have been cited in this thread already.
Such as, why does a Black kid like Duante Wright get shot (or Tased, if that was the intent) for trying to flee from a traffic stop, but a white kid like Kyle Rittenhouse can shoot two people then walk down the street with an AR-15 and cops make no effort to stop him?
Why does a Black man get shot dead by police while shopping for a BB gun in Walmart, but just last week in suburban Chicago, a white man pointed a shotgun at police and threatened to kill him, and instead of reacting with deadly force, cops spent 6+ hours negotiating with him?
I'm not saying these cops are intentionally racist. They're very likely not. But there's something in their culture, training and attitude that often leads them to treat a Black person differently than a white person. That's the systemic racism people are talking about.
Yes a thousand times this.
-
Such as, why does a Black kid like Duante Wright get shot (or Tased, if that was the intent) for trying to flee from a traffic stop, but a white kid like Kyle Rittenhouse can shoot two people then walk down the street with an AR-15 and cops make no effort to stop him?
Fog of war? Did anyone come out with the police knew he had shot anyone at the time?
My guess would be they had no idea he had shot anyone at that point.
-
Bruh. The world is going to pass you by faster than the older guys around here. Educate yourself properly before it does, and join the rest of the world and understand that this case was 100% about race.
If George Flloyd was a white guy named Edward McClosky he wouldn't have been killed because he wouldn't have been treated the way he was. Are you seriously trying to make a claim like this? Are you out of your mind?
The store clerk called the cops. I have no idea what would have happened if a man of a different race acted the exact same way Mr. Floyd did in this situation. And you don't either.
-
Fog of war? Did anyone come out with the police knew he had shot anyone at the time?
My guess would be they had no idea he had shot anyone at that point.
There's video of people yelling that he just shot someone.
But even if the cops didn't hear that, there was just a shooting. Hard not to hear an AR-15 going off down the block. And, lo and behold, here comes someone with a rifle. Don't you think they might want to stop him and ask some questions? Don't you think that a Black kid wearing a baseball cap backwards strolling through the streets of Kenosha with an AR-15 might have been stopped?
-
Do you think in the Toledo case, before the cop shot him, and had less than 1 sec to make a decision, he said to himself here's a great opportunity to kill a minority? Did he even know the race of this kid when he pulled the trigger?
The officer told Toledo what to do. The suspect complied and was shot anyway.
How long I took to make a decision doesn't matter. The officer was wrong. He killed a 13-year old. The only question that should remain in everyones mind is what should the charges be.
-
Respectfully, this displays ignorance, willful or otherwise, of what people mean when they talk about racial disparities in policing.
When we talk about racism in policing, we're not talking about cops with pointy white hats and swastika tattoos going out of their way to harm people of color. Rather, we're talking about law enforcement policies, attitudes and the culture that lead to people of color being treated differently (and usually resulting in worse outcomes).
Several examples of this have been cited in this thread already.
Such as, why does a Black kid like Duante Wright get shot (or Tased, if that was the intent) for trying to flee from a traffic stop, but a white kid like Kyle Rittenhouse can shoot two people then walk down the street with an AR-15 and cops make no effort to stop him?
Why does a Black man get shot dead by police while shopping for a BB gun in Walmart, but just last week in suburban Chicago, a white man pointed a shotgun at police and threatened to kill him, and instead of reacting with deadly force, cops spent 6+ hours negotiating with him?
I'm not saying these cops are intentionally racist. They're very likely not. But there's something in their culture, training and attitude that often leads them to treat a Black person differently than a white person. That's the systemic racism people are talking about.
So if a white kid was pulled over in lieu of Dante Wright, it's inconceivable a negligent cop could have been negligent? You believe the Daunte Wright case was about a racist officer? That she really wanted that to happen?
-
15-year-old girl in Columbus called the cops, afraid some other girls were going to jump her. They showed up and shot the girl 4 times. RIP Makiyah Bryant.
Not racist, total accident, probably a criminal, cop had to make a split-second decision, etc etc.
-
So if a white kid was pulled over in lieu of Dante Wright, it's inconceivable a negligent cop could have been negligent? You believe the Daunte Wright case was about a racist officer? That she really wanted that to happen?
I believe that if Daunte Wright was white, he wouldn't have been pulled over for having an air-freshener hanging from his rearview mirror.
-
So if a white kid was pulled over in lieu of Dante Wright, it's inconceivable a negligent cop could have been negligent? You believe the Daunte Wright case was about a racist officer? That she really wanted that to happen?
Tell me you didn't read a word I wrote, without telling me you didn't read a word I wrote.
-
I believe that if Daunte Wright was white, he wouldn't have been pulled over for having an air-freshener hanging from his rearview mirror.
The car had expired tags. The air freshener was what he told his mom. His mom gave him the car with the expired tags.
Not making excuses for him getting shot and killed but please use facts.
-
The car had expired tags. The air freshener was what he told his mom. His mom gave him the car with the expired tags.
Not making excuses for him getting shot and killed but please use facts.
It was for both. But as we've discussed ad nauseum, there is no reason to have a confrontation over such a stupid thing.
-
It was for both. But as we've discussed ad nauseum, there is no reason to have a confrontation over such a stupid thing.
I expect more out of professor forgetful.
-
The officer told Toledo what to do. The suspect complied and was shot anyway.
How long I took to make a decision doesn't matter. The officer was wrong. He killed a 13-year old. The only question that should remain in everyones mind is what should the charges be.
I’m not trying to make Toledo out to be a criminal but people keep saying he “complied”. And they keep showing the freeze frame as he was shot. Like he threw his hands up and then turned around slowly with then in view and got smoked anyways.
But he was more than halfway turned around before he ever began raising his hands, including the hand that had a gun it in 5 seconds before. Which is why there was just the single shot in my opinion.
It’s a tragic situation but it feels so much less wonton than many of the other high profile shootings. It’s just glaring cause it was a young kid
This Columbus story though, my god, I have no damn idea what they could even begin to try to explain away. Just horrific
-
I can understand how some can feel the Floyd murder wasn’t about race. I don’t think the officers woke up and said let’s kill a black man for a stupid reason (any reason). In the moment Floyd was murdered, I can see that one may think it wasn’t race motivated.
And, the systems and policies that we have put in place in this country (the war on drugs, for example) then put the cops in charge of monitoring, enforcing, and, yes, litigating on the streets are race motivated. The policies and enforcement have proven to skew on the basis of race. I personally think the skew has come from the policies and enforcement not from the behavior of a specific race.
I think it’s disingenuous to say the murder of George Floyd wasn’t race based, I think we need to dig a whole lot deeper than the 8:46 minutes during which he was slowly murdered.
-
I’ve been thinking a lot about the racial components of this today. Specifically jogged when you see 2 of the other 3 officers involved besides Chauvin are not white.
I have a story that while not policing related, sort of highlights the underlying issue a lot of times.
One of my mom’s cousins was in Vegas about 25 years ago. She was staying at Caesars, nice hotel, and had a big hit at the slots, so she’s heading back to her room with a big bucket of coins middle of the afternoon. She gets in the elevator, goes up a level, doors open and 3 African American men get in, 2 quite large. She immediately gets sort of anxious. Her floor arrives and she moves to get out, they do as well, and one moves partially past her (to hold the door) and she freaks out, hurries, stumbles, bucket falls and coins go everywhere. They immediately stop and help her, she realizes how silly she was and laughs embarrassingly, and they kind of chuckle as they help her clean up and make it to her room.
She’s not racist in the least. She went on mission trips to Africa and Central with her church. She’s actually a grandmother to two minority grandkids her daughter and SIL adopted. But she in her head thought “group of black guys=threatening”. Probably wouldn’t have thought the same about 3 frat dudes getting on, or some corn fed farmboy OLinemen from NDSU. Just that sneaky ingrained idea of threat from a broken system.
Same idea I think applies to police. Whether training or stereotypes or biases from experiences in “bad neighborhoods” and suddenly “brown=bad”, even if they are brown/non white themselves. Which is so more complex and insidious than the easy “oh the cop is just racist/white supremacist/hates black people” conclusion
EDIT: I realized this story sounds a lot like an urban legend but I can assure that it’s true and doesn’t have any of the classic “lines” that pop up in the traditional tellings ;D
-
I’m not trying to make Toledo out to be a criminal but people keep saying he “complied”. And they keep showing the freeze frame as he was shot. Like he threw his hands up and then turned around slowly with then in view and got smoked anyways.
But he was more than halfway turned around before he ever began raising his hands, including the hand that had a gun it in 5 seconds before. Which is why there was just the single shot in my opinion.
Here's where I struggle with this explanation ... when it comes to using deadly force, cops can't be in the business of guessing. And even in the most generous interpretation of what happened, guessing is what you have here.
We know the officer didn't see a gun in the kid's hand, because there was no gun. We know the officer didn't see anything that might have even looked like a gun ... a wallet, a phone, a set of keys, etc. ... because the kid's hands were open and empty. So the cop at best guessed that the kid had a gun and opened fire, rather than wait the half second longer it would have taken to be certain.
And I can't pretend to know how difficult, and probably terrifying, that half-second is for the cop. It's not an easy thing to do, by any stretch. But if you're not willing or able to be reasonably certain that the person you're about to kill is armed, then you probably shouldn't be chasing that person down an alley. Better yet, you probably shouldn't be a cop. Police officers being allowed to gun down citizens based on a suspicion that they might have a weapon doesn't seem a particularly good idea to me.
-
The car had expired tags. The air freshener was what he told his mom. His mom gave him the car with the expired tags.
Not making excuses for him getting shot and killed but please use facts.
I was under the impression that the order was reversed. He was stopped for the air-freshener, and then they noticed the expired tags.
Where I live, you can't tell vehicle registration is expired unless you run the plates, or the car is already stopped, so there would be no way to know they were expired unless you pulled them over already.
If that is not the case in Minnesota, I apologize. But given that he told his mom he was pulled over for the air freshener, immediately after the police told him why he was pulled over, makes me a bit suspicious about the actual order of events.
-
Here's where I struggle with this explanation ... when it comes to using deadly force, cops can't be in the business of guessing. And even in the most generous interpretation of what happened, guessing is what you have here.
We know the officer didn't see a gun in the kid's hand, because there was no gun. We know the officer didn't see anything that might have even looked like a gun ... a wallet, a phone, a set of keys, etc. ... because the kid's hands were open and empty. So the cop at best guessed that the kid had a gun and opened fire, rather than wait the half second longer it would have taken to be certain.
And I can't pretend to know how difficult, and probably terrifying, that half-second is for the cop. It's not an easy thing to do, by any stretch. But if you're not willing or able to be reasonably certain that the person you're about to kill is armed, then you probably shouldn't be chasing that person down an alley. Better yet, you probably shouldn't be a cop. Police officers being allowed to gun down citizens based on a suspicion that they might have a weapon doesn't seem a particularly good idea to me.
Agree. It is an extremely difficult job, but when you pull the trigger, you can’t be guessing the suspect might be holding a gun. You have to be sure that he is.
-
I believe that if Daunte Wright was white, he wouldn't have been pulled over for having an air-freshener hanging from his rearview mirror.
They likely just ran his plates while they were driving behind him and saw he had a warrant out for a violent crime and then found something trivial to pull him over for, no?
-
I think there is police racial bias, especially with profiling and pulling people over. But when it comes to these particular high profile cases we do not know if race played any role in these situations. These aren't random people that have not committed crimes.
If we do not know if race played a role, how could you say that this wasn't about race?
-
Bruh. The world is going to pass you by faster than the older guys around here. Educate yourself properly before it does, and join the rest of the world and understand that this case was 100% about race.
If George Flloyd was a white guy named Edward McClosky he wouldn't have been killed because he wouldn't have been treated the way he was. Are you seriously trying to make a claim like this? Are you out of your mind?
Muggsy just refuses to believe what is pretty obvious. <shrug>
-
so mrs. p is thanking george floyd for taking one for the team?? come on man!! the floyd family had to have thrown up in their mouths a little after hearing this comment
can't imagine why nance ain't tasked with writing eulogies for a living
-
so mrs. p is thanking george floyd for taking one for the team?? come on man!! the floyd family had to have thrown up in their mouths a little after hearing this comment
can't imagine why nance ain't tasked with writing eulogies for a living
Her comment was dumb and tasteless. Glad you got enraged about something.
-
so mrs. p is thanking george floyd for taking one for the team?? come on man!! the floyd family had to have thrown up in their mouths a little after hearing this comment
can't imagine why nance ain't tasked with writing eulogies for a living
The emptiness of your head must be so vast for you to do backflips being snarky about someone ill at ease with extemporaneous speaking considering you've spent every one of the past 364 weeks textually fellating a marauding and mealy mouthed mango miscreant.
-
Her comment was dumb and tasteless. Glad you got enraged about something.
Yup, Pelosi's dumb comment was the one thing that got the idiot angry in the whole case.
-
so mrs. p is thanking george floyd for taking one for the team?? come on man!! the floyd family had to have thrown up in their mouths a little after hearing this comment
can't imagine why nance ain't tasked with writing eulogies for a living
I see you're focused on the truly consequential thing that happened today.
What's in Tucker's yearbook?
-
Muggsy just refuses to believe what is pretty obvious. <shrug>
Muggsy does not. Muggsy wants a comprehensive discussion as opposed to agreeing to a narrative that will not solve these problems from a long-term perspective. There isn't a single person I know that doesn't believe Chauvin is a scumbag that deserves to be in prison. I would bet the same is true of every person posting in this thread. The verdict being a commentary and validation of systemic racism and police brutality is what I have a problem with accepting.
-
I see you're focused on the truly consequential thing that happened today.
What's in Tucker's yearbook?
how are your cnn boys humpty dumpty stelter, don (not juan) lemone and jeffrey (me time) toobin doing for ya
-
how are your cnn boys humpty dumpty stelter, don (not juan) lemone and jeffrey (me time) toobin doing for ya
Are you really a dentist?
-
Are you really a dentist?
It’s scary isn’t it?
-
Very impressed by the jury. They believed what they saw with their own eyes, they believed the testimony of Chauvin's own superiors and co-workers, and they unanimously reached the obvious conclusion relatively quickly.
-
Muggsy does not. Muggsy wants a comprehensive discussion as opposed to agreeing to a narrative that will not solve these problems from a long-term perspective. There isn't a single person I know that doesn't believe Chauvin is a scumbag that deserves to be in prison. I would bet the same is true of every person posting in this thread. The verdict being a commentary and validation of systemic racism and police brutality is what I have a problem with accepting.
So you disagree with Tucker Carlson?
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1384688301962141697?s=19
https://www.newsweek.com/nope-done-tucker-carlson-shuts-down-interview-after-guest-said-chauvin-used-excessive-force-1585246?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1384663851447242758?s=19
-
So you disagree with Tucker Carlson?
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1384688301962141697?s=19
https://www.newsweek.com/nope-done-tucker-carlson-shuts-down-interview-after-guest-said-chauvin-used-excessive-force-1585246?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1384663851447242758?s=19
Aw, Tucker's just setting up his 2024 presidential run, courting all the "law and order" folks who believe law and order only applies to "others."
-
At first look, it appears that Columbus police were justified in shooting a teenage Black girl who was wielding a knife and threatening others with it.
https://apnews.com/article/columbus-ohio-police-shooting-teenage-girl-0c04a74691f3f3fb3895d6220c729080
As I said, "looks like." We'll see what further details come out, but it does appear that the deceased was a real and present threat to others.
-
At first look, it appears that Columbus police were justified in shooting a teenage Black girl who was wielding a knife and threatening others with it.
https://apnews.com/article/columbus-ohio-police-shooting-teenage-girl-0c04a74691f3f3fb3895d6220c729080
As I said, "looks like." We'll see what further details come out, but it does appear that the deceased was a real and present threat to others.
I am trying to understand what I have seen in the body camera video.
At first glance, I see a man pushing a woman backwards to the ground and kicking her. (I haven't seen any information about these two which I need.) Then the shooting victim appears seemingly out of nowhere in the body cam video running up to the woman in pink against the car. Shooting victim does appear to have a knife in her hand. The officer arrives on scene, approaches and immediately shoots her from behind, as her back is turned from the officer the entire video. There didn't appear to be much/any prolonged verbal or physical de-escalation attempts, or attempted use of a taser by the officer first. A man at the scene immediately says to the officer that he didn't have to shoot the shooting victim.(The shooting victim is the person that called police in the first place.)
-
When I watched the bodycam video my first thought was "could they have tased her instead?" I'm not sure how this all works, and if that action was feasible or not in that situation.
-
The verdict being a commentary and validation of systemic racism and police brutality is what I have a problem with accepting.
I also never said that the verdict is a commentary and validation of systemic racism either.
Systemic racism in policing exists regardless of whether or not Chauvin was convicted. And this is not merely an opinion, but there are objective facts that suggest this is accurate:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0858-1
There are literally dozens of similar research studies done that indicates this.
And again, just because institutions have issues with systemic racism, that doesn't mean that the individuals themselves are racist.
-
So apparently Chauvin wanted to plead guilty and Barr blocked it?
-
So apparently Chauvin wanted to plead guilty and Barr blocked it?
Not sure how he could block a plea deal at the state level.
-
Not sure how he could block a plea deal at the state level.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ag-barr-quashed-plea-deal-fired-officer-derek-chauvin-george-n1257457
-
Ah. It's because part of the deal was to serve time in a federal prison. Gotcha.
-
So you disagree with Tucker Carlson?
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1384688301962141697?s=19
https://www.newsweek.com/nope-done-tucker-carlson-shuts-down-interview-after-guest-said-chauvin-used-excessive-force-1585246?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1384663851447242758?s=19
Just complete disconnect from reality. "The trial was absent any facts". Well, you know, other than the 9+ minute video of course.
No wonder people like rocket, 60, and 4never live in an alternate reality fantasy world.
-
I was under the impression that the order was reversed. He was stopped for the air-freshener, and then they noticed the expired tags.
Where I live, you can't tell vehicle registration is expired unless you run the plates, or the car is already stopped, so there would be no way to know they were expired unless you pulled them over already.
If that is not the case in Minnesota, I apologize. But given that he told his mom he was pulled over for the air freshener, immediately after the police told him why he was pulled over, makes me a bit suspicious about the actual order of events.
Police cars can have systems that automatically read and run plates without the officer doing anything. It will alert the officer when it runs a plate with wants etc. Several years ago talking with Greenfield police before a 4th of July parade the officers explained this technology for us.
-
I also never said that the verdict is a commentary and validation of systemic racism either.
Systemic racism in policing exists regardless of whether or not Chauvin was convicted. And this is not merely an opinion, but there are objective facts that suggest this is accurate:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0858-1
There are literally dozens of similar research studies done that indicates this.
And again, just because institutions have issues with systemic racism, that doesn't mean that the individuals themselves are racist.
I lived with a cop after college. Got to meet a lot of his fellow police along the way. This was the late 90's and I know some things have changed but it was standard operating procedure to do the following:
If you're working 4p-Midnight, at about 10pm or so you find a remote parking lot and play solitaire on your patrol laptop for 60-90 minutes. Then around 11:30pm you hit the streets and look for any expired tags, busted tail-light you can find. You wait to do this until almost midnight bc the paperwork and possible booking can add 3-4 hours of OT onto your shift. These cops weren't cruising around Mequon or Brookfield but rather the poorest parts of Milwaukee where odds were high that a busted tail-light would mean more than just one infraction. Often times it was simply unpaid fines.
This was very, very common. I would hear police brag about it. If that's not systematic racism that is at the very least preying on the most vulnerable of our community.
Fast forward to today, I just drove around for two months with expired tag bc the penalty was only $10, I was too lazy to get an emissions test and I knew my car would never get pulled over (it didn't).
I'm not the wokest guy in the world but I sure as sh!t know that there are two different worlds out there. Recognizing it doesn't make you a liberal or a conservative, it makes you human.
-
Fast forward to today, I just drove around for two months with expired tag bc the penalty was only $10, I was too lazy to get an emissions test and I knew my car would never get pulled over (it didn't).
Completely anecdotal (and not intended to disagree with anything you said), but both my wife and I have been pulled over for expired plates. In my case, it was just a couple days after it expired and I had no idea. In my wife's case an absolute pretty boy of a cop told her he was going to impound the van and when my wife responded that she was on her way to pick up her kids, he told her "that sounds like your problem, not mine." He also gave her a ticket for not having a seatbelt on because she had taken it off before he got to the car. Fortunately, a supervisor showed up and her car was not impounded. Both of us got pretty significant tickets for the expired tags ($100+ if I recall). I also got pulled over because my front license plate had fallen off (a couple years before I got pulled over...but I didn't mention that). No ticket for that one.
-
Completely anecdotal (and not intended to disagree with anything you said), but both my wife and I have been pulled over for expired plates. In my case, it was just a couple days after it expired and I had no idea. In my wife's case an absolute pretty boy of a cop told her he was going to impound the van and when my wife responded that she was on her way to pick up her kids, he told her "that sounds like your problem, not mine." He also gave her a ticket for not having a seatbelt on because she had taken it off before he got to the car. Fortunately, a supervisor showed up and her car was not impounded. Both of us got pretty significant tickets for the expired tags ($100+ if I recall). I also got pulled over because my front license plate had fallen off (a couple years before I got pulled over...but I didn't mention that). No ticket for that one.
Really prioritizing the important stuff that officer was.
-
Fast forward to today, I just drove around for two months with expired tag bc the penalty was only $10, I was too lazy to get an emissions test and I knew my car would never get pulled over (it didn't).
I'm not the wokest guy in the world but I sure as sh!t know that there are two different worlds out there. Recognizing it doesn't make you a liberal or a conservative, it makes you human.
My buddy and I each got a ticket for an expired tag even though it expired during the shutdown and the state had given a three-month grace period. I'm a white dude in a BMW, he is a white dude in a Camry. Racism!
The tickets were rescinded, but still. I felt so violated.
-
Nancy P really hit her tweet out of the ballpark yesterday: "Thank you to George Floyd for sacrificing your life." And don't forget our President has been mourning Floyd's murder for a year. He also felt the need to lecture all of us that we're racists because as we all know from his 47 yrs in Govt, and in the public eye, he has always shown class and dignity to all minorities. I'm wondering how long he has been mourning the death of Jaslyn Adams?
-
Nancy P really hit her tweet out of the ballpark yesterday: "Thank you to George Floyd for sacrificing your life." And don't forget our President has been mourning Floyd's murder for a year. He also felt the need to lecture all of us that we're racists because as we all know from his 47 yrs in Govt, and in the public eye, he has always shown class and dignity to all minorities. I'm wondering how long he has been mourning the death of Jaslyn Adams?
Serious question Muggsy, do you know what a false equivalency is?
-
Nancy P really hit her tweet out of the ballpark yesterday: "Thank you to George Floyd for sacrificing your life." And don't forget our President has been mourning Floyd's murder for a year. He also felt the need to lecture all of us that we're racists because as we all know from his 47 yrs in Govt, and in the public eye, he has always shown class and dignity to all minorities. I'm wondering how long he has been mourning the death of Jaslyn Adams?
Cool post.
Now do Marjorie Taylor Greene.
-
Serious question Muggsy, do you know what a false equivalency is?
I'm not making a comparison. We should just be aware of their ridiculousness and using people as pawns.
-
I'm not making a comparison. We should just be aware of their ridiculousness and using people as pawns.
By bringing up a death that has nothing to do with police shootings you are making a comparison. Intended or not. If you'd like to make a thread about gang violence by all means go for it, but it's irrelevant when discussing cop violence toward minorities, specifically African Americans.
-
Completely anecdotal (and not intended to disagree with anything you said), but both my wife and I have been pulled over for expired plates. In my case, it was just a couple days after it expired and I had no idea. In my wife's case an absolute pretty boy of a cop told her he was going to impound the van and when my wife responded that she was on her way to pick up her kids, he told her "that sounds like your problem, not mine." He also gave her a ticket for not having a seatbelt on because she had taken it off before he got to the car. Fortunately, a supervisor showed up and her car was not impounded. Both of us got pretty significant tickets for the expired tags ($100+ if I recall). I also got pulled over because my front license plate had fallen off (a couple years before I got pulled over...but I didn't mention that). No ticket for that one.
I appreciate my plates story is completely anecdotal as well. I'm well aware that white people in nice cars get pulled over hundreds of thousands of times a day.
-
By bringing up a death that has nothing to do with police shootings you are making a comparison. Intended or not. If you'd like to make a thread about gang violence by all means go for it, but it's irrelevant when discussing cop violence toward minorities, specifically African Americans.
Fair enough but people are waxing poetic about a bunch of things. Do you believe Biden has been mourning Floyd's death for a year? I was just curious.
-
My buddy and I each got a ticket for an expired tag even though it expired during the shutdown and the state had given a three-month grace period. I'm a white dude in a BMW, he is a white dude in a Camry. Racism!
The tickets were rescinded, but still. I felt so violated.
Were you sternly told to get out of the car? Did the officer see "something" in the car that he/she felt gave him/her the right to search your vehicle? Did he/she make you face your vehicle, put your hands on your hood and spread eagle with your legs while you got patted down (or worse)?
Many (most?) Black people fear that treatment every single time they get stopped by the cops ... and for good reason. Did you?
-
Fair enough but people are waxing poetic about a bunch of things. Do you believe Biden has been mourning Floyd's death for a year? I was just curious.
Well personally I was pretty scarred from that video. I can't imagine any rational human wouldn't be. Do I think he's spent a year sitting there lighting candles? No. But I don't think it's exactly been out of his head given the publicity, and nature of the video.
-
I'm not making a comparison. We should just be aware of their ridiculousness and using people as pawns.
The fake outrage over "What about murders in Chicago" is unreal. The same athletes / entertainers / politicians
/ corporate execs / everyday folks who post about police brutality are donating thousands of dollars / hours to inner city youth reading programs, summer lunches, day camps, food & clothing drives.
That doesn't mean they cannot also be concerned about police brutality.
-
Fair enough but people are waxing poetic about a bunch of things. Do you believe Biden has been mourning Floyd's death for a year? I was just curious.
One of my good friends died last year. I don't think about him every minute of every day, but I do think about him whenever something reminds me of him, and I mourn his death all over again, albeit briefly. I think about George Floyd considerably less often because I didn't know him. But when I am reminded of the tragedy he suffered under Chauvin's knee, yes, I mourn his death. I would imagine Biden "mourns" similarly, both about loved ones and somebody like George Floyd.
Now, what are we going to do about police brutality, specifically against people of color, and about systemic racism in American society in general?
-
The fake outrage over "What about murders in Chicago" is unreal. The same athletes / entertainers / politicians
/ corporate execs / everyday folks who post about police brutality are donating thousands of dollars / hours to inner city youth reading programs, summer lunches, day camps, food & clothing drives.
That doesn't mean they cannot also be concerned about police brutality.
This. It's always bugged me on this board. I can't remember who, but back when I was going door to door in the west side and living in humboldt park I confronted someone on here who was waxing and waning about it and they admitted they dont care about those neighborhoods. I think heisenberg? Could be wrong. It's just another talking point for people who've never stepped foot into those neighborhoods to act like they care.
-
Well personally I was pretty scarred from that video. I can't imagine any rational human wouldn't be. Do I think he's spent a year sitting there lighting candles? No. But I don't think it's exactly been out of his head given the publicity, and nature of the video.
It was a horrible video as are many videos of people senselessly dying. I generally don't mourn the deaths of people I have never met for a year but I suppose it's not 100% inconceivable . I'm quite upset about the death of Trixie the whale shark at the Georgia Aquarium in November. They can live 100 yrs in the wild.
-
The fake outrage over "What about murders in Chicago" is unreal. The same athletes / entertainers / politicians
/ corporate execs / everyday folks who post about police brutality are donating thousands of dollars / hours to inner city youth reading programs, summer lunches, day camps, food & clothing drives.
That doesn't mean they cannot also be concerned about police brutality.
Exactly.
Also, a person's activism on one particular issue is not invalidated if that person is not actively trying to right ALL of the earth's wrongs. But people play that game all the time when it comes to civil rights issues.
So, for example, NBA players who speak out against racism are attacked for not also speaking out against the Chinese government. BLM activists who speak out against police misconduct are attacked over "black on black" crime. Joe Biden apparently can't mourn George Floyd unless he's publicly mourning every other Black murder victim.
It's mind-bogglingly stupid.
Where else does this happen? Do people who march to raise money for breast cancer research get attacked for not paying enough attention to leukemia? Did Jerry Lewis get attacked for not hosting a telethon for ALS or cerebral palsy?
-
This. It's always bugged me on this board. I can't remember who, but back when I was going door to door in the west side and living in humboldt park I confronted someone on here who was waxing and waning about it and they admitted they dont care about those neighborhoods. I think heisenberg? Could be wrong. It's just another talking point for people who've never stepped foot into those neighborhoods to act like they care.
Most aren't even pretending they care. It's just a way to deflect and make a false equivalence.
"Yeah, a few bad cops kill Black people, but what about all the Black-on-Black crime in Chicago? What about it, huh? What about it?"
That was a Ners specialty, but unfortunately he wasn't alone.
-
Exactly.
Also, a person's activism on one particular issue is not invalidated if that person is not actively trying to right ALL of the earth's wrongs. But people play that game all the time when it comes to civil rights issues.
So, for example, NBA players who speak out against racism are attacked for not also speaking out against the Chinese government. BLM activists who speak out against police misconduct are attacked over "black on black" crime. Joe Biden apparently can't mourn George Floyd unless he's publicly mourning every other Black murder victim.
It's mind-bogglingly stupid.
Where else does this happen? Do people who march to raise money for breast cancer research get attacked for not paying enough attention to leukemia? Did Jerry Lewis get attacked for not hosting a telethon for ALS or cerebral palsy?
True. And the good news for most of you is that all of these cities where these horrific things are happening, and getting worse, are controlled by Democrats. And when Garland investigates the Minneapolis police he will find out that are primarily Democrats. And when Democratic leadership attempts to federalize police depts, if they are successful, crime rates will go way up. But lecturing everyone we are a country of racists, with police depts. full of Chauvin's will solve all of these problems. Especially because electing more Democrats to run our cities has proven to be a winning formula.
-
True. And the good news for most of you is that all of these cities where these horrific things are happening, and getting worse, are controlled by Democrats. And when Garland investigates the Minneapolis police he will find out that are primarily Democrats. And when Democratic leadership attempts to federalize police depts, if they are successful, crime rates will go way up. But lecturing everyone we are a country of racists, with police depts. full of Chauvin's will solve all of these problems. Especially because electing more Demorats to run our cities has proven to be a winning formula.
Maybe instead of blaming you should take an introspective look at what about your party is turning off the more diverse demographics in cities.
Honest question, your moms from Ireland and I've never met a child of a European immigrant as right as you. Center right, sure but that's left over here, socially right, seen that as well but that's not what you usually post. What influenced this?
-
True. And the good news for most of you is that all of these cities where these horrific things are happening, and getting worse, are controlled by Democrats. And when Garland investigates the Minneapolis police he will find out that are primarily Democrats. And when Democratic leadership attempts to federalize police depts, if they are successful, crime rates will go way up. But lecturing everyone we are a country of racists, with police depts. full of Chauvin's will solve all of these problems. Especially because electing more Demorats to run our cities has proven to be a winning formula.
Cops kill blacks because they're... liberal? lol
You've got your talking points mixed up homie
-
Cops kill blacks because they're... liberal? lol
You've got your talking points mixed up homie
That's not what I stated. Who is controlling these cities?
-
Were you sternly told to get out of the car? Did the officer see "something" in the car that he/she felt gave him/her the right to search your vehicle? Did he/she make you face your vehicle, put your hands on your hood and spread eagle with your legs while you got patted down (or worse)?
Many (most?) Black people fear that treatment every single time they get stopped by the cops ... and for good reason. Did you?
I can answer the questions, as years ago, I was also stopped and ticketed for an expired license plate in Illinois. My answer to each question is no. Maybe none of what you ask happened to me because I'm white. Or maybe it's because when the officer approached my car, I respectfully asked why I was stopped and I accepted the ticket. Or maybe it's because when he ran my plates, he didn't find any outstanding warrants against me that would give him reason to sternly tell me to get out of the car, face the vehicle, hands on the hood to be patted down. I can't speak for them, and just my guess, but maybe that's what happened to Billy Hoyle and his buddy when they got stopped as well.
I'm not saying there aren't cops out there who hassle black drivers for no reason. Just sayin', it isn't always for no other reason.
-
I can answer the questions, as years ago, I was also stopped and ticketed for an expired license plate in Illinois. My answer to each question is no. Maybe none of what you ask happened to me because I'm white. Or maybe it's because when the officer approached my car, I respectfully asked why I was stopped and I accepted the ticket. Or maybe it's because when he ran my plates, he didn't find any outstanding warrants against me that would give him reason to sternly tell me to get out of the car, face the vehicle, hands on the hood to be patted down. I can't speak for them, and just my guess, but maybe that's what happened to Billy Hoyle and his buddy when they got stopped as well.
I'm not saying there aren't cops out there who hassle black drivers for no reason. Just sayin', it isn't always for no other reason.
No one is saying that every time a black person is stopped it is because they are black.
Statistically, your experience is very different from those of Black Americans.
-
True. And the good news for most of you is that all of these cities where these horrific things are happening, and getting worse, are controlled by Democrats.
True. Horrific crime never happens in rural America. Or red states.
And when Garland investigates the Minneapolis police he will find out that are primarily Democrats.
No. Police officers are overwhelmingly Republican.
-
Have a good day all. Hopefully things will get better but both political parties have severe probs. Unfortunately I think the most influential people on the Left are completely destroying our country. I don't think the specific police reforms floating around will make anyone safer, especially the most vulnerable. Federalizing these police depts. would be a complete disaster imo. Take care.
-
Have a good day all. Hopefully things will get better but both political parties have severe probs. Unfortunately I think the most influential people on the Left are completely destroying our country. I don't think the specific police reforms floating around will make anyone safer, especially the most vulnerable. Federalizing these police depts. would be a complete disaster imo. Take care.
Stupid comment. You always feign ignorance but then post this bullcrap. See you later buddy
-
Have a good day all. Hopefully things will get better but both political parties have severe probs. Unfortunately I think the most influential people on the Left are completely destroying our country. I don't think the specific police reforms floating around will make anyone safer, especially the most vulnerable. Federalizing these police depts. would be a complete disaster imo. Take care.
Back to the safe space then. Adios!
Btw, the right has done more damage to this country than the left. Historically, and presently.
-
No one is saying that every time a black person is stopped it is because they are black.
Statistically, your experience is very different from those of Black Americans.
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702 (https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702)
-
True. And the good news for most of you is that all of these cities where these horrific things are happening, and getting worse, are controlled by Democrats. And when Garland investigates the Minneapolis police he will find out that are primarily Democrats. And when Democratic leadership attempts to federalize police depts, if they are successful, crime rates will go way up. But lecturing everyone we are a country of racists, with police depts. full of Chauvin's will solve all of these problems. Especially because electing more Democrats to run our cities has proven to be a winning formula.
Tribe gonna tribe. Fanatic gonna fanatic. Regurgitated talking points gonna regurgitate. Group think gonna group think.
When every day life gets in the way, the tighter they cling.
-
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702 (https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702)
You may as well have linked google. If you're attempting to make a point, make it, or link something with substance... or quote what you're getting at.
Since I'm a lunatic, I assumed you meant to reference this:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf
IF that is what you're referencing, then I think this is the most important part.
A higher percentage of blacks (4%) and Hispanics (3%) than whites (2%) or other races (2%) experienced threats or use of force.
So double.
Also this.
Four percent of blacks and 4% of Hispanics reported being handcufed during their most recent contact with police, compared to 2% of whites and 2% of other races.
double.
Please correct me if these weren't the points that you were trying to make... since I'm left assuming a lot.
-
I'm not saying there aren't cops out there who hassle black drivers for no reason. Just sayin', it isn't always for no other reason.
Of course not.
And I'm just sayin' that white folks simply do not have to worry about stuff happening "for no other reason." Literally all the Black parents I know are scared to death about their sons and daughters (but especially sons) being stopped for DWB.
-
Regarding traffic stops, read a few pages of this decision if you need a taste of what Blacks encounter waaaaaay too regularly:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7013933-Jamison-v-McClendon.html?fbclid=IwAR2fmYXG1LAjJOCbTMAfJHGDNt-ifevYWwC_hRfpMfsU3-dt_fZeymZ_gcA
-
And when Garland investigates the Minneapolis police he will find out that are primarily Democrats.
I need to put Scoop Takes on speed dial
-
Have a good day all. Hopefully things will get better but both political parties have severe probs. Unfortunately I think the most influential people on the Left are completely destroying our country. I don't think the specific police reforms floating around will make anyone safer, especially the most vulnerable. Federalizing these police depts. would be a complete disaster imo. Take care.
Ah yes, after my talking points have been shot to crap, revert to "both sides". Can we put you in contact with Chicos/Warrior Dad? You'd enjoy a beer summit together.
I'd also love to know, specifically, how the left is completely destroying the country.
-
Exactly.
Also, a person's activism on one particular issue is not invalidated if that person is not actively trying to right ALL of the earth's wrongs. But people play that game all the time when it comes to civil rights issues.
So, for example, NBA players who speak out against racism are attacked for not also speaking out against the Chinese government. BLM activists who speak out against police misconduct are attacked over "black on black" crime. Joe Biden apparently can't mourn George Floyd unless he's publicly mourning every other Black murder victim.
It's mind-bogglingly stupid.
Where else does this happen? Do people who march to raise money for breast cancer research get attacked for not paying enough attention to leukemia? Did Jerry Lewis get attacked for not hosting a telethon for ALS or cerebral palsy?
think ya got em all covered? convenient filter ya got there. btw, criticism of chinese gubmint is more about human rights issues and...ahem...slavery? there are many profiting from this abhorrent treatment of human beings that has been an ongoing flashpoint about our very own country. big difference is we saw the wrong and corrected it. terrible things going on in china right now. nothing much said about the "editing"/censoring of the freddie mercury movie for example. big hollywood had no problems there. wonder why? not really
-
You may as well have linked google. If you're attempting to make a point, make it, or link something with substance... or quote what you're getting at.
Since I'm a lunatic, I assumed you meant to reference this:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf
IF that is what you're referencing, then I think this is the most important part.
A higher percentage of blacks (4%) and Hispanics (3%) than whites (2%) or other races (2%) experienced threats or use of force. Didn't know I needed to make a point in order to post. Just giving those who care a place to see some statistics on traffic stops.
So double.
Also this.
Four percent of blacks and 4% of Hispanics reported being handcufed during their most recent contact with police, compared to 2% of whites and 2% of other races.
double.
Please correct me if these weren't the points that you were trying to make... since I'm left assuming a lot.
-
think ya got em all covered? convenient filter ya got there. btw, criticism of chinese gubmint is more about human rights issues and...ahem...slavery? there are many profiting from this abhorrent treatment of human beings that has been an ongoing flashpoint about our very own country. big difference is we saw the wrong and corrected it. terrible things going on in china right now. nothing much said about the "editing"/censoring of the freddie mercury movie for example. big hollywood had no problems there. wonder why? not really
China is a huge blind spot for ALL of America. IMO we're all guilty of it. I would wager that your portfolio is doing well in part because of American company's mining the Chinese consumer the past 10-15 years. But LeBron's indifference to the Uyghurs doesn't invalidate his stance on police brutality.
-
think ya got em all covered? convenient filter ya got there. btw, criticism of chinese gubmint is more about human rights issues and...ahem...slavery? there are many profiting from this abhorrent treatment of human beings that has been an ongoing flashpoint about our very own country. big difference is we saw the wrong and corrected it. terrible things going on in china right now. nothing much said about the "editing"/censoring of the freddie mercury movie for example. big hollywood had no problems there. wonder why? not really
The USA does those things too, buddy.
-
think ya got em all covered? convenient filter ya got there. btw, criticism of chinese gubmint is more about human rights issues and...ahem...slavery? there are many profiting from this abhorrent treatment of human beings that has been an ongoing flashpoint about our very own country. big difference is we saw the wrong and corrected it. terrible things going on in china right now. nothing much said about the "editing"/censoring of the freddie mercury movie for example. big hollywood had no problems there. wonder why? not really
Holy crap, what?
-
think ya got em all covered? convenient filter ya got there. btw, criticism of chinese gubmint is more about human rights issues and...ahem...slavery? there are many profiting from this abhorrent treatment of human beings that has been an ongoing flashpoint about our very own country. big difference is we saw the wrong and corrected it. terrible things going on in china right now. nothing much said about the "editing"/censoring of the freddie mercury movie for example. big hollywood had no problems there. wonder why? not really
whataboutism?
-
China is a huge blind spot for ALL of America. IMO we're all guilty of it. I would wager that your portfolio is doing well in part because of American company's mining the Chinese consumer the past 10-15 years. But LeBron's indifference to the Uyghurs doesn't invalidate his stance on police brutality.
Ding ding ding
I assume rocket has divested from any company doing business in china. And he also never buys any product made in china or with a part made in china. Otherwise, he's a huge hypocrite.
-
think ya got em all covered? convenient filter ya got there. btw, criticism of chinese gubmint is more about human rights issues and...ahem...slavery? there are many profiting from this abhorrent treatment of human beings that has been an ongoing flashpoint about our very own country. big difference is we saw the wrong and corrected it. terrible things going on in china right now. nothing much said about the "editing"/censoring of the freddie mercury movie for example. big hollywood had no problems there. wonder why? not really
hoo boy.
what kind of cellphone do you use? do you own a tablet and/or computer; where were they made? do you or any member of your family wear raybans, hushpuppies and levis? have you ever supported a politician who had clothing manufactured under his name that was made in china (even as he claimed that china was evil)? how about that politician's daughter's clothing line? etc etc etc. show us your hands are 100% clean and we'll respect your viewpoint on this subject a little more.
in the meantime, if you go to the grocery store and they ask if you want to give $1 to fight childhood cancer, i suggest you get all angry and say, "all cancer matters," and storm out.
-
think ya got em all covered? convenient filter ya got there. btw, criticism of chinese gubmint is more about human rights issues and...ahem...slavery? there are many profiting from this abhorrent treatment of human beings that has been an ongoing flashpoint about our very own country. big difference is we saw the wrong and corrected it. terrible things going on in china right now. nothing much said about the "editing"/censoring of the freddie mercury movie for example. big hollywood had no problems there. wonder why? not really
My favorite part is when you said we corrected racism.
-
Ding ding ding
I assume rocket has divested from any company doing business in china. And he also never buys any product made in china or with a part made in china. Otherwise, he's a huge hypocrite.
Gotta be awkward when he shows up to the office naked, hey?
-
Gotta be awkward when he shows up to the office naked, hey?
Probably no issue if he doesn’t shave his head.
-
Probably no issue if he doesn’t shave his head.
almost spit my coffee
-
Probably no issue if he doesn’t shave his head.
Well played.
-
And when Garland investigates the Minneapolis police he will find out that are primarily Democrats.
If you truly believe this, I have a number of bridges and South Florida investment properties you might be interested in.
-
If you truly believe this, I have a number of bridges and South Florida investment properties you might be interested in.
Its cut from the same cloth as "The January 6th insurrectionists were really Antifa and BLM".
-
If you truly believe this, I have a number of bridges and South Florida investment properties you might be interested in.
True....
Its cut from the same cloth as "The January 6th insurrectionists were really Antifa and BLM".
....and true.
What's also true is that if the DOJ does find that elected officials that are Democrats are guilty of wrongdoing 80% of Dem voters will call for them to be prosecuted, 15% will call for due process (and accept the results) and 5% will engage in deflection/whataboutism.
-
My favorite part is when you said we corrected racism.
do you have to intentionally be obtuse? slavery
-
True........and true.
What's also true is that if the DOJ does find that elected officials that are Democrats are guilty of wrongdoing 80% of Dem voters will call for them to be prosecuted, 15% will call for due process (and accept the results) and 5% will engage in deflection/whataboutism.
Where are those stats on the virtuous and noble Democrat voters coming from? Cause that feels like some blue tinged glasses
-
Do you think people will be "satisfied" with the verdict if he's convicted on all charges assuming Waters didn't cause an automatic appeal or mistrial? Or will there be violence regardless of the verdict?
Here's what I noticed having just watched the summations: The prosecutor was excellent and the defense lawyer was solid as well. There is no such thing as a slam dunk verdict. But the prosecutor not a single time invoked race as having anything to do with this particular case , nor did he condemn police departments..
As far as I know race was never mentioned at all during the entire trial. This is about right and wrong, period. The vast, vast, vast, majority of people at the very minimum, agree Chauvin was guilty of excessive force (manslaughter) which led to the death of Mr. Floyd. I think all of us hope he's convicted on all charges but that won't necessarily please the protesters and rioters. Unfortunately the fact that this case wasn't moved to a different venue, and you have people like Maxine Waters saying asinine things in the streets, this is potentially a fking nightmare. And the Governor of Minnesota, proved in his comments as well, that he's a complete asshead..
-
True........and true.
What's also true is that if the DOJ does find that elected officials that are Democrats are guilty of wrongdoing 80% of Dem voters will call for them to be prosecuted, 15% will call for due process (and accept the results) and 5% will engage in deflection/whataboutism.
Democrat here, lifelong (thus far). This is absolutely false. I'd guess somewhere around 80% of Democrats would say "who?", 15% will blame it on the Republicans or some form of conspiracy, & 5% will accept it at face value.
People that spend all day watching MSNBC/Fox, reading Twitter etc tend to vastly overestimate the extent to which people in their party actually care at all. Legitimate research shows that only 25% of Americans can even name the 3 branches of the federal government.
Vast majority of people vote for the one thing they themselves want & otherwise have negligible involvement in politics.
-
do you have to intentionally be obtuse? slavery
Oof
-
Democrat here, lifelong (thus far). This is absolutely false. I'd guess somewhere around 80% of Democrats would say "who?", 15% will blame it on the Republicans or some form of conspiracy, & 5% will accept it at face value.
People that spend all day watching MSNBC/Fox, reading Twitter etc tend to vastly overestimate the extent to which people in their party actually care at all. Legitimate research shows that only 25% of Americans can even name the 3 branches of the federal government.
Vast majority of people vote for the one thing they themselves want & otherwise have negligible involvement in politics.
The 25% seems high based on my experiences. I did a very informal survey of knowledge of government for a class I took in college. I questioned fellow college students and locals, most of which lived in rural Wisconsin. The questions ranged from naming the political party of their US Senators to being able to name their districts state rep. The lack of knowledge was astounding. It’s always stuck with me and been reinforced over and over when listening to friends or overhearing others talk about politics.
-
And another Black man shot by police, this time in NC.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article250843094.html?
Details are sketchy still, so withholding any opinion. but protests are going on as the State Bureau of Investigations takes over the case.
But a city councilman, who is Black, reflects on the fear of a Black person having any kind of encounter with police:
“I’m afraid. You know, I mean let’s be real. We talk about transparency, I’m gonna be transparent. I’m afraid, as a Black man walking around this city, driving my car down the road ... "
White people (including me, obviously) will never ever know what systemic racism feels like in our everyday lives.
-
Where are those stats on the virtuous and noble Democrat voters coming from? Cause that feels like some blue tinged glasses
In retrospect - guilty as charged. I was way to optimistic.
What I was getting at can be illustrated in this thread and is a microcosm for the population in general. I'll go back and read it (later today and with non tint glasses) but the sentiment to Biden and Waters comments were 'Absolutely dumb and should not have been said but that shouldn't be the thing that outrages you about this situation'. Not defending the comments, not justifying them, just agreeing that the politician was wrong. I don't see that ever happening from the MAGA Scoopers about any Repub that's not considered a RINO.
-
In retrospect - guilty as charged. I was way to optimistic.
What I was getting at can be illustrated in this thread and is a microcosm for the population in general. I'll go back and read it (later today and with non tint glasses) but the sentiment to Biden and Waters comments were 'Absolutely dumb and should not have been said but that shouldn't be the thing that outrages you about this situation'. Not defending the comments, not justifying them, just agreeing that the politician was wrong. I don't see that ever happening from the MAGA Scoopers about any Repub that's not considered a RINO.
Yeah, your percentages were a little wacky, but your thought was reasonable IMHO.
Al Franken was forced out of Congress - by Democrats - for doing something a fraction as bad as what Gaetz allegedly did, what TaylQr-Greene did, etc. Weiner, too. He obviously had to go, but we'll see how Republicans treat Gaetz. I mean, the previous president incited a deadly riot that attempted to cancel the votes of tens of millions of Americans and resulted in 100+ cops being injured ... and not only didn't most of his fellow "law and order" Republicans take action against him, they bowed to their king and refused to acknowledge that he lost a free and fair election. The handful of Republican legislators who courageously did vote to impeach him? Those were the people the GOP went after.
-
LBJ is an idiot.
-
LBJ is an idiot.
Will he apologize to that cop who saved this young girl? Or will he ever tweet about horrific murders like Jaslyn Adam's? Left Wokism is absolutely destroying this country.
-
Will he apologize to that cop who saved this young girl? Or will he ever tweet about horrific murders like Jaslyn Adam's? Left Wokism is absolutely destroying this country.
Lebron James tweeting is destroying this country? Man, I thought we were made of sterner stuff than that if this is what takes us down.
-
LBJ is an idiot.
Hah I read this and immediately thought you meant Lyndon B Johnson lmao
-
Will he apologize to that cop who saved this young girl? Or will he ever tweet about horrific murders like Jaslyn Adam's? Left Wokism is absolutely destroying this country.
1. No, he's a celebrity, relax
2. No, she wasn't murdered by the state
3. Nope, just trying to drag you guys into the 21st century.
-
Will he apologize to that cop who saved this young girl? Or will he ever tweet about horrific murders like Jaslyn Adam's? Left Wokism is absolutely destroying this country.
Yes he has are you happy? Will this get you to shut up with these talking points or does he need to tweet about every one in every city ever?
http://es.pn/1FNbnDx
What do you know there's more examples
https://thesportsrush.com/nba-news-lebron-james-tweets-about-6-children-being-killed-by-gun-violence-in-the-us/
In fact he made a statement with Wade, Wade mentioned the police killings as well as gang retaliation so you're going to need to rationally read through the statement and see it's culpability for all parties.
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/berger-lebron-other-nba-stars-take-monumental-step-in-speaking-out-against-violence/
He's also said this where he says all violence needs to stop. I know he mentions police but maybe read past that.
“I do not condone violence towards anyone,” James said. “Police, Black people, white people, anyone of color, anyone not of color because that’s not gonna ever make this world or America what we want it to be.”
-
Yes he has are you happy? Will this get you to shut up with these talking points or does he need to tweet about every one in every city ever?
http://es.pn/1FNbnDx
What do you know there's more examples
https://thesportsrush.com/nba-news-lebron-james-tweets-about-6-children-being-killed-by-gun-violence-in-the-us/
In fact he made a statement with Wade, Wade mentioned the police killings as well as gang retaliation so you're going to need to rationally read through the statement and see it's culpability for all parties.
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/berger-lebron-other-nba-stars-take-monumental-step-in-speaking-out-against-violence/
He's an imbecile and you know this very well Galway. You guys repeat your talking points every day.
-
He's an imbecile and you know this very well Galway. You guys repeat your talking points every day.
...so you claim Lebron never tweets about horrific murders like Jaslyn Adams...Galway provides you evidence that he has...who's repeating talking points here?
-
He's an imbecile and you know this very well Galway. You guys repeat your talking points every day.
I hate Lebron James for a ton of reasons but I'm sticking to the facts, fact is he has tweeted about those types of murders. You have repeated, literally, the same talking point from yesterday.
PS I tried to reach out and gain an insight into your viewpoint's origins so we might communicate better and got no response, instead you left the thread.
-
He's an imbecile and you know this very well Galway. You guys repeat your talking points every day.
LeBron is not an "imbecile." What a ridiculous thing to say. He's a self-made billionaire, and not because his daddy gave him hundreds of millions of dollars. And he actually does significant benevolent work that benefits society.
He has said dopey things. Welcome to the club. If that's the bar for "imbeciles," Scoop is filled with 'em, including you and me.
Oh, and when you have to use falsehoods (as in LeBron's twitting history) to make your point, your point is not very sharp. C'mon Muggs.
-
Will he apologize to that cop who saved this young girl? Or will he ever tweet about horrific murders like Jaslyn Adam's? Left Wokism is absolutely destroying this country.
Racism has been destroying this country for years, so I think we’ll survive wokism
-
Will he apologize to that cop who saved this young girl? Or will he ever tweet about horrific murders like Jaslyn Adam's? Left Wokism is absolutely destroying this country.
The DJIA is at 34,000. Please explain how the country is being destroyed? All metrics of a functioning society seem to indicate it is doing ok.
As for Jaslyn Adams, your concern is admirable. Sadly gang violence like that is a very unfortunate reality in many cities. I have worked with numerous professional athletes throughout the years who tirelessly worked behind the scenes to help alleviate it. Tragic as it is it is not surprising in gang infested areas. What should always be surprising and warrant public outcry is when those charged to protect us, instead do harm. Even worse when those charged to protect us, do harm and then band together in solidarity and do not admit their mistakes.
Everyone know that gang banger(s) who shot Jaslyn is a POS. No one is defending him / them. But police fraternities are slow and silent on wrongful deaths from their hands.
-
The DJIA is at 34,000. Please explain how the country is being destroyed? All metrics of a functioning society seem to indicate it is doing ok.
As for Jaslyn Adams, your concern is admirable. Sadly gang violence like that is a very unfortunate reality in many cities. I have worked with numerous professional athletes throughout the years who tirelessly worked behind the scenes to help alleviate it. Tragic as it is it is not surprising in gang infested areas. What should always be surprising and warrant public outcry is when those charged to protect us, instead do harm. Even worse when those charged to protect us, do harm and then band together in solidarity and do not admit their mistakes.
Everyone know that gang banger(s) who shot Jaslyn is a POS. No one is defending him / them. But police fraternities are slow and silent on wrongful deaths from their hands.
For what it's worth the dad's a piece of $hit as well. He filmed himself pissing and spitting on a rival gang member's grave. Does he really think that gang or family weren't going to retaliate?
Obviously the child didn't deserve to die. This guy, as a father and gang member, should probably have the thought process of "if I do this, then they will come after me. Whether my child is in the car or not"
Here's the link
https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.61699/title.chicago-rapper-pissed-on-opps-grave-prior-to-7-year-old-daughters-mcdonalds-murder
-
I was just thinking, I also strongly dislike LBJ, much like some on here disliked Rush. That said, I respect his right to say anything he feels helps his cause, regardless if I agree with him or not. If something bad happened LBJ I would not celebrate the event. Whether I think LBJ says things that hurt a cause or help cause really is my business, but it does not allow my the right to hate everyone that supports him. For the record, I think LBJ and Ted Nugent both should stick to their days jobs
-
Racism has been destroying this country for years, so I think we’ll survive wokism
Well what these "proposals "will lead to is hamstrung police departments and far more violence and death. Would you rather see thousands more dead? And insisting that our system is systemically racist, or that our citizens are predominately racists, has lead and will lead to more racists. As I have said before even if 95% of Americans conceded that this insistence about ubiquitous racism is true it wouldn't solve these very challenging problems.
You cannot have a comprehensive discussion about change by simply yelling racism, racism, racism, after every single police incident. It starts in the home, in our schools, and on the streets of course. And if you think this is a totally separate issue from so called systemic police racism, or that's it a smaller issue for that matter, you're being intellectually dishonest. The discussion has to include all of these things, including abusive cops, but also personal responsibility, committing crimes, and resisting arrest. It can't just be vilifying police and our citizens for "the system".
-
Well what these "proposals "will lead to is hamstrung police departments and far more violence and death. Would you rather see thousands more dead? And insisting that our system is systemically racist, or that our citizens are predominately racists, has lead and will lead to more racists. As I have said before even if 95% of Americans conceded that this insistence about ubiquitous racism is true it wouldn't solve these very challenging problems.
You cannot have a comprehensive discussion about change by simply yelling racism, racism, racism, after single police incident. It starts in the home, in our schools, and on the streets of course. And if you thi l this is a totally separate issue from so called systemic police racism, or that's it a smaller issue for that matter, you're being intellectually dishonest. The discussion has to include all of these things, including abusive cops, but also personal responsibility, committing crimes, and resisting arrest. It can't be vilifying police and our citizens for "the system".
I very much agree with this statement. There's been protests after every shooting recently and it's probably time to take a step back and say "they had a gun or a knife... ok" and be more selective in protest
-
Yes he has are you happy? Will this get you to shut up with these talking points or does he need to tweet about every one in every city ever?
http://es.pn/1FNbnDx
What do you know there's more examples
https://thesportsrush.com/nba-news-lebron-james-tweets-about-6-children-being-killed-by-gun-violence-in-the-us/
In fact he made a statement with Wade, Wade mentioned the police killings as well as gang retaliation so you're going to need to rationally read through the statement and see it's culpability for all parties.
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/berger-lebron-other-nba-stars-take-monumental-step-in-speaking-out-against-violence/
He's also said this where he says all violence needs to stop. I know he mentions police but maybe read past that.
“I do not condone violence towards anyone,” James said. “Police, Black people, white people, anyone of color, anyone not of color because that’s not gonna ever make this world or America what we want it to be.”
Ya...that was 6 yrs ago. How about meeting with this cop and others, apologizing, trying to understand their perspective, and wait more than 5 secs to Tweet "You're next" with a picture of the cop. He's a hypocrite and a total imbecile imo.
-
I was just thinking, I also strongly dislike LBJ, much like some on here disliked Rush. That said, I respect his right to say anything he feels helps his cause, regardless if I agree with him or not. If something bad happened LBJ I would not celebrate the event. Whether I think LBJ says things that hurt a cause or help cause really is my business, but it does not allow my the right to hate everyone that supports him. For the record, I think LBJ and Ted Nugent both should stick to their days jobs
I appreciate this take, Goose, though I'm pretty sure that LBJ has done more for society in the average hour than Nugent has in his entire life. But that's a whole 'nother discussion. Again, thanks for a reasonable, calm comment.
-
Ya...that was 6 yrs ago. How about meeting with this cop and others, apologizing, trying to understand their perspective, and wait more than 5 secs to Tweet "You're next" with a picture of the cop. He's a hypocrite and a total imbecile imo.
Ok so 1 is six years ago...
Did you read the second one which was from last summer or immediately jump to conclusions?
Given your response I'm going to answer that you jumped to conclusions.
Edit: also why should he apologize from the get go? Or do you mean apologize for the "you're next" because that I agree was classless and doesn't help dialogue. I am fully on board with hating Lebron, fully against his recent tweet and subsequent defense of it. I'm not on board with the false arguments you've presented, false comparisons or the use of slippery slope arguments.
-
82
Biggest problem in this country, IMO, is every feels they have the right to determine right and wrong, good or bad on every topic. The older I get the less black and white life has become. I dislike cops as a rule, but respect cops. The idiot cop in Minneapolis is in the can and he belongs there. The female cop that accidently killed the guy does not belong in the can, IMO. Nothing is going to change in this country until people stop being so black and white on things.
I'll take your word on what LBJ has done for society vs. Ted. That said, I know one thing about LBJ, he's no MJ.
-
LeBron was born to an impoverish single mother who was 16 years old. He ended up building a school for similarly at risk kids in his hometown. How anyone could see him as anything but the American Dream is beyond me.
-
Hah I read this and immediately thought you meant Lyndon B Johnson lmao
I thought 'pretty harsh for a president dead for 50 years.'
-
LeBron was born to an impoverish single mother who was 16 years old. He ended up building a school for similarly at risk kids in his hometown. How anyone could see him as anything but the American Dream is beyond me.
Because he didn't play in college. Then keep his mouth shut about anything political/social despite going to college. Aka shut up and dribble.
Actually I don't know why I used teal, im pretty confident it's accurate if you add in the special rules he gets to play by but that's stars in general.
-
I thought 'pretty harsh for a president dead for 50 years.'
Yeah, I thought it was a deep joke about the prior post saying republicans wouldn't call out there own and 4ever was calling out someone he supported back in the day who was a dem.
Would've been a solid thinker overall.
-
I was just thinking, I also strongly dislike LBJ, much like some on here disliked Rush. That said, I respect his right to say anything he feels helps his cause, regardless if I agree with him or not. If something bad happened LBJ I would not celebrate the event. Whether I think LBJ says things that hurt a cause or help cause really is my business, but it does not allow my the right to hate everyone that supports him. For the record, I think LBJ and Ted Nugent both should stick to their days jobs
Did you really just compare Lebron James with Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent? One of those people isn't like the others.
-
82
Biggest problem in this country, IMO, is every feels they have the right to determine right and wrong, good or bad on every topic. The older I get the less black and white life has become. I dislike cops as a rule, but respect cops. The idiot cop in Minneapolis is in the can and he belongs there. The female cop that accidently killed the guy does not belong in the can, IMO. Nothing is going to change in this country until people stop being so black and white on things.
I'll take your word on what LBJ has done for society vs. Ted. That said, I know one thing about LBJ, he's no MJ.
We agree 100% about the amount of gray and nuance in most issues. Human nature to put things in black-and-white, simplistic terms. Easier to say, "LeBron is an idiot" or "LeBron is an imbecile," as some have done, than discuss something rationally. And yes, easier to say, "Orange man bad," too.
We generally agree about police officers, though if a driver who accidentally kills somebody is charged with vehicular homicide or manslaughter, then certainly a cop who draws her Taser instead of her gun and kills somebody can be charged with something. A jury will decide if she should be convicted.
I think many would argue that LBJ has been far more out-front on equality issues and far more altruistic of his time and money than MJ was at a similar stage of his career. But yes, MJ is the best player ever, and he has come around nicely on equality issues. He even has admitted that he was protecting his own bottom line in refusing to speak out during his career, which couldn't have been an easy admission for him.
Nice conversation, Goose. Thanks.
-
The only people who are imbeciles are those who think LeBron is better than Jordan. NO ONE is better than Jordan.
-
Hah I read this and immediately thought you meant Lyndon B Johnson lmao
Hymm two, hey?
-
shoothoops
I love all people, not just folks that agree with me.
-
Ya...that was 6 yrs ago. How about meeting with this cop and others, apologizing, trying to understand their perspective, and wait more than 5 secs to Tweet "You're next" with a picture of the cop. He's a hypocrite and a total imbecile imo.
You get more worked about an LBJ tweet than you do about police actually killing someone. Telling.
-
I've never understood celebrities who feel obligated to voice their opinions to the masses. By definition, they piss off at least 50% of those listening, depending on the the crowd.
As for all the philanthropic good some of these folks do, I must prefer those who are charitable in an anonymous way, rather than needing to stick their face and name on something. Just my style...different strokes for different folks, aina?
-
I've never understood celebrities who feel obligated to voice their opinions to the masses. By definition, they piss off at least 50% of those listening, depending on the the crowd.
As for all the philanthropic good some of these folks do, I must prefer those who are charitable in an anonymous way, rather than needing to stick their face and name on something. Just my style...different strokes for different folks, aina?
So I guess I'm just curious about this. At what point of celebrity do you start to believe this? I mean let's say you got put up for Head of the ADA, is that being a celebrity amongst your peers?
Is it an education thing? Then is it ok for some like Natalie Portman or Emma Waston who have been Ivy educated?
Is it a relating to common man thing?
Just trying to understand this viewpoint a bit better if you don't mind elaborating.
-
I've never understood celebrities who feel obligated to voice their opinions to the masses. By definition, they piss off at least 50% of those listening, depending on the the crowd.
As for all the philanthropic good some of these folks do, I must prefer those who are charitable in an anonymous way, rather than needing to stick their face and name on something. Just my style...different strokes for different folks, aina?
You and I voice our opinions here on Scoop. We don't have the soapbox that celebrities do. If we did, would we be content merely voicing our opinions here, especially if we truly felt our opinions could help make the world a better place?
Why are Tucker Carlson's and Rachel Maddow's opinions better or worse or more valuable than LeBron's or Nugent's? Carlson and Maddow are just celebrities, too.
Once upon a time, Walter Winchell was voicing his opinions to the masses. So were Mark Twain and Adolph Hitler. Celebrities all.
You and I have no idea how much charitable stuff any of these folks do when the camera's not on. For example, Cam Newton was extremely active in altruistic causes in Charlotte outside of public view; I know about it only because my wife is an RN at the children's hospital and saw it with her own eyes. Having said that, I'll take athletes, entertainers, politicians, etc doing charitable work even in the public eye because it's better than them not doing it.
Just my opinion, nu?
-
I live in an area with a DeVos Place convention center, a Van Andel Arena, a DeVos Children's Hospital, Meijer Gardens. Sorry, dds, but rich folk have been engaging in public philanthropy since the times of the Vanderbilt's.
It isn't the philanthropy that offends you.
-
shoothoops
I love all people, not just folks that agree with me.
I'm not going to get into a long back forth about it, but comparing LBJ to RL and TN is beyond my comprehension. RL publicly for example waa an extremely dangerous human being with little to zero redeeming qualities. That goes well beyond agree or disagree with someone views.
-
If celebrities couldn't very, very, very publicly commit acts of charity, JJ Watt would cease to exist.
-
shoothoops
I compared feelings towards a person or a cause, not comparison of any two people. Your post proves my original point.
-
I live in an area with a DeVos Place convention center, a Van Andel Arena, a DeVos Children's Hospital, Meijer Gardens. Sorry, dds, but rich folk have been engaging in public philanthropy since the times of the Vanderbilt's.
It isn't the philanthropy that offends you.
Yeah, my favorite is when the billionaire sports team owner demands hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers, threatening to move his team if they don't comply.
Then, with those hundreds of millions of taxpayer $$$ in his pocket, he donates $5 million to a college and gets two buildings and an arena named after him. Jerry Richardson was famous (infamous) for that. What a fraud, as well as a creep.
But he's an old, rich white guy, so I guess his voice "matters" more than an athlete's or entertainer's does.
-
shoothoops
I compared feelings towards a person or a cause, not comparison of any two people. Your post proves my original point.
I read all of your posts in this thread. We have a non-starter here if you believe the public actions and character of Lebron James and Rush Limbaugh are in the same stratosphere. That isn't an apples to apples comparison.
I also don't agree that we can say the police officer in Minnesota that killed someone at a traffic stop should get no jail time, and, that it be considered an accident. We can go by what we see. The victim was not a threat, and, was trying to leave. The use of a taser there let alone a gun wasn't an appropriate use of force. This is why charges were quickly brought against her. She unnecessarily ended someone else's life.
So yes sometimes there are standards, even laws that get decide right and wrong. It isn't just a matter of well my philosophical viewpoint is this or that vs someone else who has a different viewpoint, in every example.
-
I read all of your posts in this thread. We have a non-starter here if you believe the public actions and character of Lebron James and Rush Limbaugh are in the same stratosphere. That isn't an apples to apples comparison.
I also don't agree that we can say the police officer in Minnesota that killed someone at a traffic stop should get no jail time, and, that it be considered an accident. We can go by what we see. The victim was not a threat, and, was trying to leave. The use of a taser there let alone a gun wasn't an appropriate use of force. This is why charges were quickly brought against her. She unnecessarily ended someone else's life.
So yes sometimes there are standards, even laws that get decide right and wrong. It isn't just a matter of well my philosophical viewpoint is this or that vs someone else who has a different viewpoint, in every example.
Shoothoops, I don't think you're following what Goose is saying. Two people can disagree with their feelings about different people or causes. You like LBJ and think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Goose thinks Rush is all that and a slice o' cheese. So when Rush died, you couldn't give a rat's a$$. Hell, maybe you even celebrated it. Goose is saying when LBJ dies, he may not give a rat's a$$, but he also won't celebrate it. Each LeBron and Rush have said and done things that some find to be horrible and some find to be great. Each has done philanthropic things and donated millions to various causes.
Not to put words in Goose's mouth and not to answer for him, but the point simply is that one doesn't have to agree with or like a person or a cause in order to respect that person or cause. As a friend of mine likes to say, that's why there's apple pie and cherry pie. To each his own, pal.
-
Litehouse
Thanks for cleaning up my thoughts. You are about 98% spot on with my thoughts. Only minor tweak is I never thought Rush was all that, more a great success story and entertainer. Again, I do appreciate you cleaning up my words. I write like I talk (fast, fast, fast) and equally confusing when speaking my thoughts.
-
Shoothoops, I don't think you're following what Goose is saying. Two people can disagree with their feelings about different people or causes. You like LBJ and think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Goose thinks Rush is all that and a slice o' cheese. So when Rush died, you couldn't give a rat's a$$. Hell, maybe you even celebrated it. Goose is saying when LBJ dies, he may not give a rat's a$$, but he also won't celebrate it. Each LeBron and Rush have said and done things that some find to be horrible and some find to be great. Each has done philanthropic things and donated millions to various causes.
Not to put words in Goose's mouth and not to answer for him, but the point simply is that one doesn't have to agree with or like a person or a cause in order to respect that person or cause. As a friend of mine likes to say, that's why there's apple pie and cherry pie. To each his own, pal.
I don't think it's a very fair comparison. Rush said horrible things, and you can sit there and say "he didn't" or "it's comedy" but if I called your daughter a slut and prostitute for wanting birth control you'd be rightfully very pissed.
Now Lebron was flat out wrong here, but the difference is he deleted it and has tried walking back.
It's not a valid comparison. Rush vs Bill Maher is a fair comparison. Both are a$$es that have said asinine things trying to pass off as entertaining news. Heck I could even back the Nugent to Lebron comparison because they're both uneducated entertainers trying to take political stances.
-
Well, one person literally celebrated the deaths of innocent American citizens because he didn't like their lifestyle choices. And that one person wasn't LeBron. So there's that.
One literally spent several hours a day, 5 days a week, for years and years, spewing hate, fear, lies and divisiveness. The other is an athlete who every month or three twits out something controversial that rubs some the wrong way. So there's that, too.
I know Goose wasn't really commenting "about" them, per se, but one does not have to "like" or "dislike" these very public figures to realize they are not opposite sides of the same coin.
One is a decent (but flawed, as we all are) human being who has repeatedly proven that he cares about his fellow human beings; the other was Rush Limbaugh.
Saying all that doesn't mean I lack respect for Goose; indeed, I consider him an interwebs friend even though we often disagree politically.
-
Litehouse
Thanks for cleaning up my thoughts. You are about 98% spot on with my thoughts. Only minor tweak is I never thought Rush was all that, more a great success story and entertainer. Again, I do appreciate you cleaning up my words. I write like I talk (fast, fast, fast) and equally confusing when speaking my thoughts.
I don't consider RL a great success story and entertainer. It's pretty disingenuous to try to pass off RL as a harmless entertainer.
-
I don't think it's a very fair comparison. Rush said horrible things, and you can sit there and say "he didn't" or "it's comedy" but if I called your daughter a slut and prostitute for wanting birth control you'd be rightfully very pissed.
Now Lebron was flat out wrong here, but the difference is he deleted it and has tried walking back.
It's not a valid comparison. Rush vs Bill Maher is a fair comparison. Both are a$$es that have said asinine things trying to pass off as entertaining news. Heck I could even back the Nugent to Lebron comparison because they're both uneducated entertainers trying to take political stances.
Mostly reasonable ... except I'm trying to remember which people LeBron ever advocated exterminating, or when LeBron ever said that a then-U.S. Senator should "suck on my machine gun."
-
Mostly reasonable ... except I'm trying to remember which people LeBron ever advocated exterminating, or when LeBron ever said that a then-U.S. Senator should "suck on my machine gun."
Thats coming in the new space jam
-
82
I picked Rush to stir the pot. Could have been DJT, Tucker, Hannity or countless other folks. I felt like Rush has not been hated on for a few weeks on scoop and didn't anyone to forget about him.
shoothoops
Unlike some folks I take entertainers opinion about as seriously as I take some some scoopers opinion on MU basketball. You, like many on here, are a far bigger expert on the life and times of Rush than I am. I listened to him in the early 2000's when I started business and was in the car driving around he country trying to make a buck and probably a grand total of an hour over the last decade of his life.
-
So I guess I'm just curious about this. At what point of celebrity do you start to believe this? I mean let's say you got put up for Head of the ADA, is that being a celebrity amongst your peers?
Is it an education thing? Then is it ok for some like Natalie Portman or Emma Waston who have been Ivy educated?
Is it a relating to common man thing?
Just trying to understand this viewpoint a bit better if you don't mind elaborating.
Fair question...I am not interested in actors/actresses, athletes, or others like ADA presidents expressing their public opinions on topics in which they have no expertise. Their value to me is solely centered on their ability to entertain or speak authoritatively on topics in their field. For example, I don't give a chit if Brett Favre thinks Chauvin should have been acquitted or if the current ADA president would think MLB's moving the All-Star game to Denver was a prudent move. On the other hand, Brett Favre speaking publicly about the lengthened NFL regular season, or the ADA president voicing his opinion on fluoride in the public drinking water, I'm all ears, hey?
-
Fair question...I am not interested in actors/actresses, athletes, or others like ADA presidents expressing their public opinions on topics in which they have no expertise. Their value to me is solely centered on their ability to entertain or speak authoritatively on topics in their field. For example, I don't give a chit if Brett Favre thinks Chauvin should have been acquitted or if the current ADA president would think MLB's moving the All-Star game to Denver was a prudent move. On the other hand, Brett Favre speaking publicly about the lengthened NFL regular season, or the ADA president voicing his opinion on fluoride in the public drinking water, I'm all ears, hey?
I agree with you....yet you were the one who brought Lebron into the discussion.
-
I was just thinking, I also strongly dislike LBJ, much like some on here disliked Rush. That said, I respect his right to say anything he feels helps his cause, regardless if I agree with him or not. If something bad happened LBJ I would not celebrate the event. Whether I think LBJ says things that hurt a cause or help cause really is my business, but it does not allow my the right to hate everyone that supports him. For the record, I think LBJ and Ted Nugent both should stick to their days jobs
"I respect LBJ's right to say anything he feels helps his cause."
"I think LBJ should stick to his day job."
Which is it?
-
Fair question...I am not interested in actors/actresses, athletes, or others like ADA presidents expressing their public opinions on topics in which they have no expertise. Their value to me is solely centered on their ability to entertain or speak authoritatively on topics in their field. For example, I don't give a chit if Brett Favre thinks Chauvin should have been acquitted or if the current ADA president would think MLB's moving the All-Star game to Denver was a prudent move. On the other hand, Brett Favre speaking publicly about the lengthened NFL regular season, or the ADA president voicing his opinion on fluoride in the public drinking water, I'm all ears, hey?
Interesting, I respect the opinion. Don't necessarily agree 100% but certainly agree to an extent. So following up on that, does that include politicians as well? I mean should every politician have either an Econ degree, Poli Sci degree, or be a lawyer? (Sure I'm forgetting options that may also be relevant)
Or is that a different status of celebrity? Also since you agreed on my ADA comment does this apply to endorsements (not just political but even Aaron Rogers supporting State Farm) and Super PACs as well? Or because they're backing someone for a singular goal is that ok?
-
As for Lebron, he's a great basketball player and should be grateful everyday that he lives in a country that affords him, and everyone else the opportunity to earn the enormous income for something so trivial as basketball, which adds absolutely nothing to the betterment of mankind other than its entertainment value, hey?
-
82
I picked Rush to stir the pot. Could have been DJT, Tucker, Hannity or countless other folks. I felt like Rush has not been hated on for a few weeks on scoop and didn't anyone to forget about him.
shoothoops
Unlike some folks I take entertainers opinion about as seriously as I take some some scoopers opinion on MU basketball. You, like many on here, are a far bigger expert on the life and times of Rush than I am. I listened to him in the early 2000's when I started business and was in the car driving around he country trying to make a buck and probably a grand total of an hour over the last decade of his life.
Goose, Nads nos nothin' 'bout stirrin' da pot, aina?
-
82
I picked Rush to stir the pot. Could have been DJT, Tucker, Hannity or countless other folks. I felt like Rush has not been hated on for a few weeks on scoop and didn't anyone to forget about him.
shoothoops
Unlike some folks I take entertainers opinion about as seriously as I take some some scoopers opinion on MU basketball. You, like many on here, are a far bigger expert on the life and times of Rush than I am. I listened to him in the early 2000's when I started business and was in the car driving around he country trying to make a buck and probably a grand total of an hour over the last decade of his life.
Words matter.
Again, this is about basic human decency, dangers to society, vs more trivial differences of opinion of a topic. There is a colossal difference here.
-
I think some you guys should camp yourselves in 420 thread.
-
"I respect LBJ's right to say anything he feels helps his cause."
"I think LBJ should stick to his day job."
Which is it?
Why can't both things can't be true at once? I can respect another's right to say anything he or she wants. But I can also disagree with it and say say I don't think what the other person said is worth a damn. Then, the other's free to think the same about what I've said.
See what I did there?
-
Litehouse
Of course both can be true. I did not respond because I did not want to stir BLM up and see him get banned again for his behavior.
-
Litehouse
Of course both can be true. I did not respond because I did not want to stir BLM up and see him get banned again for his behavior.
Good pernt.
I don't understand why it's so difficult for some to grasp the concept that two people can have different opinions on a topic, and that's ok. Two people can disagree. But they can and should still be respectful towards each other. Why some feel like anyone who disagrees with them should be cast into Gehenna, is beyond me.
-
Thanks for cleaning up my thoughts. You are about 98% spot on with my thoughts. Only minor tweak is I never thought Rush was all that, more a great success story and entertainer. Again, I do appreciate you cleaning up my words. I write like I talk (fast, fast, fast) and equally confusing when speaking my thoughts.
It's well known around here that I have an irrational hate towards Lebron. But, to even suggest remotely, that Rush and Lebron are remotely comparable is absurd.
That are certain bars that need to be met before some can deserve any respect. Rush did become famous and rich, but he did so by spewing hate. Deserves zero respect, and frankly, it isn't a "differences of opinion" thing, it is quite simply morality and values.
-
Why can't both things can't be true at once? I can respect another's right to say anything he or she wants. But I can also disagree with it and say say I don't think what the other person said is worth a damn. Then, the other's free to think the same about what I've said.
See what I did there?
Both things can't be true at once.
If you're suggesting that someone ought not speak their mind (aka shut up and dribble), then you don't actually respect that person's right to say anything they want.
-
Pakuni
Goose never said shut up and dribble.
-
Pakuni
Goose never said shut up and dribble.
I wonder, then, what Goose meant by "stick to his day job." Was he taking issue with his filmmaking skills?
-
Goose meant the same thing that my wife means when she says "stick with your day job" after my attempt at singing or being funny or my sons after I shank a golf shot after high stepping earlier in the round. For the record, back to my original point, I could not care less what Lebron or anyone else says or does. Unless it affects my life, which it does not, I am fine with every fxxkhead out there says, does, thinks or is thinking about saying as long as my life is not affected.
-
Goose meant the same thing that my wife means when she says "stick with your day job" after my attempt at singing or being funny or my sons after I shank a golf shot after high stepping earlier in the round. For the record, back to my original point, I could not care less what Lebron or anyone else says or does. Unless it affects my life, which it does not, I am fine with every fxxkhead out there says, does, thinks or is thinking about saying as long as my life is not affected.
So as long as they don't say it on your backswing?
-
I think some you guys should camp yourselves in 420 thread.
Not an expert on that subject, so I don't belong there.
-
I could not care less what Lebron or anyone else says or does.
It's funny that the people who claim that they could not care less, certainly seem like they could care less.
-
82
I picked Rush to stir the pot. Could have been DJT, Tucker, Hannity or countless other folks. I felt like Rush has not been hated on for a few weeks on scoop and didn't anyone to forget about him.
That's cool, I love pot-stirrin'. And right about now, I could use a little pot-smokin'! Alas, I'll have to settle for getting together with my Thursday craft beer gang in about a half-hour!
Just glad you admit that you like to stir the pot, too. It's fun, nu?
LeBron For President '24!
Peace out, baby.
-
Litehouse
Of course both can be true. I did not respond because I did not want to stir BLM up and see him get banned again for his behavior.
How can both be true? You literally say you respect his right to say what he wants, but then you go and say he should stick to dribbling a basketball and not talk about things besides "ball." If you respect his right to say what he wants about whatever he wants, then why are you also opining on what he should or should not talk about?
Appreciate your concern though.
-
It's funny that the people who claim that they could not care less, certainly seem like they could care less.
I for one am thrilled two posters have now said couldn't care less instead of could care less.
-
I am not interested in actors/actresses, athletes, or others like ADA presidents expressing their public opinions on topics in which they have no expertise. Their value to me is solely centered on their ability to entertain or speak authoritatively on topics in their field. For example, I don't give a chit if Brett Favre thinks Chauvin should have been acquitted or if the current ADA president would think MLB's moving the All-Star game to Denver was a prudent move. On the other hand, Brett Favre speaking publicly about the lengthened NFL regular season, or the ADA president voicing his opinion on fluoride in the public drinking water, I'm all ears, hey?
The beautiful thing, Doc, is that you don't have to pay attention to any of these people whose words don't interest you, nu?
As for Lebron, he's a great basketball player and should be grateful everyday that he lives in a country that affords him, and everyone else the opportunity to earn the enormous income for something so trivial as basketball, which needs absolutely nothing to the betterment of mankind other than its entertainment value, hey?
So if one is a "trivial" athlete, one cannot possibly contribute to the "betterment of mankind"?
Arthur Ashe, Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali might disagree if they were still alive.
Does speaking out about important topics mean that an athlete isn't "grateful everyday that he lives in a country that affords him, and everyone else the opportunity to earn the enormous income for something so trivial as basketball"?
I'm not sure why you think all of these things are mutually exclusive. You sure opine about a lot of stuff. Shame on you for not being grateful that you live in America!
-
82
I picked Rush to stir the pot. Could have been DJT, Tucker, Hannity or countless other folks. I felt like Rush has not been hated on for a few weeks on scoop and didn't anyone to forget about him.
shoothoops
Unlike some folks I take entertainers opinion about as seriously as I take some some scoopers opinion on MU basketball. You, like many on here, are a far bigger expert on the life and times of Rush than I am. I listened to him in the early 2000's when I started business and was in the car driving around he country trying to make a buck and probably a grand total of an hour over the last decade of his life.
The other thing...besides words matter...is who says them and what they say matters too. Life and experience is far too specific and individual to be generalized, that all of the people you mentioned be lumped in as the same. They aren't. They don't say and do the same things publicly.
-
How can both be true? You literally say you respect his right to say what he wants, but then you go and say he should stick to dribbling a basketball and not talk about things besides "ball." If you respect his right to say what he wants about whatever he wants, then why are you also opining on what he should or should not talk about?
Appreciate your concern though.
He has the right to say that. He is free to judge the free speech of others. As are we all. And we are free to judge his judgement. Ad infinitum.
-
Both things can't be true at once.
If you're suggesting that someone ought not speak their mind (aka shut up and dribble), then you don't actually respect that person's right to say anything they want.
I can think someone is a moron who has no idea what they are talking about and probably shouldn't ramble about stuff they are informed about without saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
I used to play open mics and a guy used to play almost every week and would bring his own in-ear monitors and set up a looping pedal he didn't know how to use and spent more time setting it up than actually using it in a song. He was terrible and arrogant and made no attempt to become part of the musician group that often played, but thought he was Ed Sheeran and largely only was allowed to take 10 min to set up and change everything cause he was a friend of the owner and would tip the sound guy.
He was a clown and someone who you would definitely tell not to quit his day job if assessed or asked about his skill/ability/etc... but he had as much right to play or be up there as I did, and I didn't begrudge him for it.
I feel the same about someone like Lebron sometimes. He should run more by Maverick Carter who is the reason that he's wildly successful off the court.
-
Let me get this straight: When Lebron was told to "shut up and dribble" his freedom of speech rights were taken away? People say similar things to each other every day. So was he and we supposed to take this phrase literally and conclude that his liberty is being threatened?
Meanwhile, Lebron had some very erudite things to say about Hong Kong and liberty when Daryl Morey tweeted support for that community. Remember this is a place where people's freedom of speech and overall liberty ARE actually being taken away. But "The King" said something to the effect that Morey....needs to be more educated....this could be dangerous for people and their freedoms...and blah, blah blah, blah, blah.
No one is taking Lebron's freedoms away, this is completely ridiculous. "Shut up and dribble" is not modern day Nazis knocking at his door. And while he continues to say asinine things, and vilify police, I'm wondering if he will get rid of his security team because they're virulent racists? If every living American told Lebron to shut the fk up or "shut up and dribble" it would not change the fact that he lives in the freest country ever created and he can say whatever the hell he wants.
-
He has the right to say that. He is free to judge the free speech of others. As are we all. And we are free to judge his judgement. Ad infinitum.
Agreed. But if I respect his right to say whatever, I'm not going to then turn around and say he shouldn't be saying what he's saying.
-
Let me get this straight: When Lebron was told to "shut up and dribble" his freedom of speech rights were taken away? People say similar things to each other every day. So was he and we supposed to take this phrase literally and conclude that his liberty is being threatened?
Meanwhile, Lebron had some very erudite things to say about Hong Kong and liberty when Daryl Morey tweeted support for that community. Remember this is a place where people's freedom of speech and overall liberty ARE actually being taken away. But "The King" said something to the effect that Morey....needs to be more educated....this could be dangerous for people and their freedoms...and blah, blah blah, blah, blah.
No one is taking Lebron's freedoms away, this is completely ridiculous. "Shut up and dribble" is not modern day Nazis knocking at his door. And while he continues to say asinine things, and vilify police, I'm wondering if he will get rid of his security team because they're virulent racists? If every living American told Lebron to shut the fk up or "shut up and dribble" it would not change the fact that he lives in the freest country ever created and he can say whatever the hell he wants.
.
Who said any of that?
-
Agreed. But if I respect his right to say whatever, I'm not going to then turn around and say he shouldn't be saying what he's saying.
I think the view is “he can say it, but that doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously.”
I can say something about a whole lot of subjects, but that doesn’t mean I’m right or even an educated person on the matter.
This kind of reminds me of the Chappelle stand up about the news going to Ja Rule for his reaction to 9/11.
-
Let me get this straight: When Lebron was told to "shut up and dribble" his freedom of speech rights were taken away?
Sorry, but who said this? You like to make up arguments that no one is actually making.
Meanwhile, Lebron had some very erudite things to say about Hong Kong and liberty when Daryl Morey tweeted support for that community. Remember this is a place where people's freedom of speech and overall liberty ARE actually being taken away. But "The King" said something to the effect that Morey....needs to be more educated....this could be dangerous for people and their freedoms...and blah, blah blah, blah, blah.
Ah yes... The fallacy that if you can't adequately speak out against one injustice, you shouldn't be allowed to speak out about any injustices.
-
I can think someone is a moron who has no idea what they are talking about and probably shouldn't ramble about stuff they are informed about without saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
I know we're splitting hairs here, but there's a difference between thinking to yourself that someone shouldn't express opinions with which you disagree, and publicly saying they should not express those opinions.
Again, I don't see how you can't respect a person's right to express themselves while also telling that person not to express himself or herself. That latter, to me, seems pretty disrespectful.
-
Personally, I think we'd all be a bit better off on focusing so much on the cultural wars and instead zero in on economic policy. If we fix the economics, likely the culture significantly improves
Not to mention if we're all arguing/focused on the culture, DC can continue to screw us on the economics.
-
Let me get this straight: When Lebron was told to "shut up and dribble" his freedom of speech rights were taken away? People say similar things to each other every day. So was he and we supposed to take this phrase literally and conclude that his liberty is being threatened?
Meanwhile, Lebron had some very erudite things to say about Hong Kong and liberty when Daryl Morey tweeted support for that community. Remember this is a place where people's freedom of speech and overall liberty ARE actually being taken away. But "The King" said something to the effect that Morey....needs to be more educated....this could be dangerous for people and their freedoms...and blah, blah blah, blah, blah.
No one is taking Lebron's freedoms away, this is completely ridiculous. "Shut up and dribble" is not modern day Nazis knocking at his door. And while he continues to say asinine things, and vilify police, I'm wondering if he will get rid of his security team because they're virulent racists? If every living American told Lebron to shut the fk up or "shut up and dribble" it would not change the fact that he lives in the freest country ever created and he can say whatever the hell he wants.
It sure seems like you get mad about a lot of things that only happen in your imagination.
-
It sure seems like you get mad about a lot of things that only happen in your imagination.
I'm not mad at all nor is this something I imagined.
-
Personally, I think we'd all be a bit better off on focusing so much on the cultural wars and instead zero in on economic policy. If we fix the economics, likely the culture significantly improves
Not to mention if we're all arguing/focused on the culture, DC can continue to screw us on the economics.
Excellent point.
Re Lebron: I have no idea what he tweeted/deleted but he did grow up as a poor black kid in an urban environment so he has a much different relationship with police than the majority of us. That experience does give him credibility when talking about this subject.
-
Excellent point.
Re Lebron: I have no idea what he tweeted/deleted but he did grow up as a poor black kid in an urban environment so he has a much different relationship with police than the majority of us. That experience does give him credibility when talking about this subject.
Wait, wait, wait....lots of people were born a poor black child...
(https://www.lifedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Jerk-a-poor-black-child..jpg)
-
Let me get this straight: When Lebron was told to "shut up and dribble" his freedom of speech rights were taken away? People say similar things to each other every day. So was he and we supposed to take this phrase literally and conclude that his liberty is being threatened?
This is your imagination.
No one is taking Lebron's freedoms away, this is completely ridiculous. "Shut up and dribble" is not modern day Nazis knocking at his door. And while he continues to say asinine things, and vilify police, I'm wondering if he will get rid of his security team because they're virulent racists? If every living American told Lebron to shut the fk up or "shut up and dribble" it would not change the fact that he lives in the freest country ever created and he can say whatever the hell he wants.
This is you getting mad about things in your imagination.
-
Excellent point.
Re Lebron: I have no idea what he tweeted/deleted but he did grow up as a poor black kid in an urban environment so he has a much different relationship with police than the majority of us. That experience does give him credibility when talking about this subject.
No one has credibility when they respond within 5 mins of an incident without knowing the facts. Especially someone with his mass following. To his credit he insinuated he didn't know the facts in his 2nd Tweet. Perhaps he can learn from this and as irresponsible as he was, he isn't as awful as Jarrett, Biden/Psaki, and others.
-
This is your imagination.
This is you getting mad about things in your imagination.
I will try to not get angry but disagree. Ty.
-
Perhaps he can learn from this and as irresponsible as he was, he isn't as awful as Jarrett, Biden/Psaki, and others.
This is some sick/crazy stuff.
-
I know we're splitting hairs here, but there's a difference between thinking to yourself that someone shouldn't express opinions with which you disagree, and publicly saying they should not express those opinions.
Again, I don't see how you can't respect a person's right to express themselves while also telling that person not to express himself or herself. That latter, to me, seems pretty disrespectful.
If we’re still talking about “don’t quit your day job” (as opposed to shut up and dribble which I think is a terrible sentiment), then I guess we just have different interpretations. I’m not telling you that you don’t have the right to express yourself, but I am telling you I’m not gonna take it seriously cause it’s uninformed. Especially in a culture that, for some reason, many people give “celebrities” voices undue weight just cause they are in the public eye.
-
I have no problem with a celebrity, athlete, entertainer, etc. giving their opinions on an issue. It's no different than us as lawyer, doctors, dentists, electricians, engineers, whatever. Why should someone be censored because they're higher profile? Hell, we just had a President who created his popularity through his status as a celebrity. That said, I find the attacks on someone who is a celebrity to be rather hypocritical when that same side promotes the opinions of their own celebrities (Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, Chachi, Lebron, Alyssa Milano, etc.). Sorry, Megan Kelly, you can't tell Lebron "shut up and dribble" unless you're also telling James Woods "shut up and chase 17 year olds."
I do realize celebrity opinions do have greater influence than most so they need to be more careful and informed. Lebron's was very reckless the other day and the problem is many who read the first one won't read the mean culpa.
-
I have no problem with a celebrity, athlete, entertainer, etc. giving their opinions on an issue. It's no different than us as lawyer, doctors, dentists, electricians, engineers, whatever. Why should someone be censored because they're higher profile? Hell, we just had a President who created his popularity through his status as a celebrity. That said, I find the attacks on someone who is a celebrity to be rather hypocritical when that same side promotes the opinions of their own celebrities (Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, Chachi, Lebron, Alyssa Milano, etc.). Sorry, Megan Kelly, you can't tell Lebron "shut up and dribble" unless you're also telling James Woods "shut up and chase 17 year olds."
I do realize celebrity opinions do have greater influence than most so they need to be more careful and informed. Lebron's was very reckless the other day and the problem is many who read the first one won't read the mean culpa.
It wasn't exactly an apology Billy, and he was forced to do so with the backlash. But he does deserve a scintilla of credit for his "knowing the facts" comments.
-
It wasn't exactly an apology Billy, and he was forced to do so with the backlash. But he does deserve a scintilla of credit for his "knowing the facts" comments.
How many times have you been silent when people you support delete stuff or say outlandish things?
Play it fair or don't play at all.
-
Now's a good time remember that if the injustice you see in all of this is a tweet from LeBron James, you've really, irretrievably missed the point.
I remember in grade school learning about MLK and the civil rights movement, and thinking "who the hell were these people fighting against de-segregation and objecting to policies that sought to treat black people like humans"? Adulthood has taught that those people never disappeared.
-
It wasn't exactly an apology Billy, and he was forced to do so with the backlash. But he does deserve a scintilla of credit for his "knowing the facts" comments.
I didn't say it was. I took the deletion as an admission of ignorance and error, but that's it. It's actually more than we can ask for from some celebrities.
-
I didn't say it was. I took the deletion as an admission of ignorance and error, but that's it. It's actually more than we can ask for from some celebrities.
That's fair.
-
Personally, I think we'd all be a bit better off on focusing so much on the cultural wars and instead zero in on economic policy. If we fix the economics, likely the culture significantly improves
Not to mention if we're all arguing/focused on the culture, DC can continue to screw us on the economics.
Like sleepy's capital gains tax proposal?
-
and there you have it-social workers could have saved the day? oy vey please tell me this isn't the "re-imagining" thingy
https://www.newsweek.com/columbus-ohio-councilmember-suggests-having-social-worker-present-may-have-led-different-outcome-1585747
-
Like sleepy's capital gains tax proposal?
Much higher marginal rate for gains over $1M? All for it. Hopefully Biden this also closes the carried interest loophole.
-
and there you have it-social workers could have saved the day? oy vey please tell me this isn't the "re-imagining" thingy
https://www.newsweek.com/columbus-ohio-councilmember-suggests-having-social-worker-present-may-have-led-different-outcome-1585747
Focused on the important issues I see.
-
and there you have it-social workers could have saved the day? oy vey please tell me this isn't the "re-imagining" thingy
https://www.newsweek.com/columbus-ohio-councilmember-suggests-having-social-worker-present-may-have-led-different-outcome-1585747
Are we sure he's wrong?
Not blaming the cop here, but what likely outcome do you imagine worse than a 15-year-old girl shot dead by a police officer?
-
Like sleepy's capital gains tax proposal?
We need to focus more on economics. Yup. Ignore the culture war BS
-
Are we sure he's wrong?
Not blaming the cop here, but what likely outcome do you imagine worse than a 15-year-old girl shot dead by a police officer?
I don’t know, maybe the cop standing by and watching the 15 year old stab the 13 year old, so people could rail on the cop for letting an innocent 13 year old get killed? I know you said you’re not blaming the cop, but the 13 year old was clearly about to be stabbed. It’s one teen or the other.
-
Are we sure he's wrong?
Not blaming the cop here, but what likely outcome do you imagine worse than a 15-year-old girl shot dead by a police officer?
"imagine worse than a 15 year old girl shot dead by a police officer"?
split second later and there could have been 2 dead teenagers, but that's just me "imagining" thank God it didn't happen that way
-
why is it so hard for people like lebron to just be honest here and apologize to(and thank) the police officer and call off his dogs
-
Wait, wait, wait....lots of people were born a poor black child...
(https://www.lifedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Jerk-a-poor-black-child..jpg)
"Those cans totally deserved it" - probably Muggsy and Rocket
-
why is it so hard for people like lebron to just be honest here and apologize to(and thank) the police officer and call off his dogs
Why is it so hard for you to not constantly try to change subject and refuse to understand the point that systemic racism exists within policing in this country right now?
All you do is bring up side points to distract from the main issue. Maybe get upset and the main one for once.
-
Focused on the important issues I see.
you're a piece of work sully...so tell me what the "important issues" are. this is all very relevant to the thread with exception of "black man". when joy(less) behar wonders why the cop didn't fire a "warning shot" or shoot the girl in the "behind" the truth and the reality of this situation has got to be revealed. the media narrative is just so wrong and is further dividing this nation
the celebrities and big shot politicians need get rid of their armed security and hire social workers to see how this works out first-show us how that's done
-
Why is it so hard for you to not constantly try to change subject and refuse to understand the point that systemic racism exists within policing in this country right now?
All you do is bring up side points to distract from the main issue. Maybe get upset and the main one for once.
because that's not the topic of this thread and sorry, but i disagree with your premise. last time i checked, that's supposed to be ok in this country...yet
-
I don’t know, maybe the cop standing by and watching the 15 year old stab the 13 year old, so people could rail on the cop for letting an innocent 13 year old get killed? I know you said you’re not blaming the cop, but the 13 year old was clearly about to be stabbed. It’s one teen or the other.
Those were the only possible outcomes?
-
you're a piece of work sully...so tell me what the "important issues" are. this is all very relevant to the thread with exception of "black man". when joy(less) behar wonders why the cop didn't fire a "warning shot" or shoot the girl in the "behind" the truth and the reality of this situation has got to be revealed. the media narrative is just so wrong and is further dividing this nation
the celebrities and big shot politicians need get rid of their armed security and hire social workers to see how this works out first-show us how that's done
Joy Behar isn’t “the media”, she’s a bleeding heart liberal who sits on with other dramatic women and argues about pointless stuff to entertain housewives having coffee after their kids go to school. She’s a wannabe firebrand for ratings. What she or Lebron or Ted Nugent or James Woods said is completely unimportant and not worth focusing on for more than 2 min and isn’t the “media narrative”.
If you wanna complain about Lester Holt or Cuomo and a media narrative, fine. But stop wasting brain cells on people who are wholly unimportant to these discussions. Unless you have nothing else to add to the underlying issues at hand. If that’s the case, just be honest about thinking “reactions” are more important than the actual issues.
-
Those were the only possible outcomes?
You're right. The 13 year old could have lived after being stabbed a bunch o’ times by the 15 year old.
And there would still be cries of, why didn’t the cop do something to protect that innocent 13 year old?
Tell me what else could have realistically happened. You saw the latest video from the neighbor’s security cam. The 15 year old was raising her hand with the life, in a rage. Do you think she wasn’t going to stab the 13 year old?
I’ll hang up and listen for my answer.
-
You're right. The 13 year old could have lived after being stabbed a bunch o’ times by the 15 year old.
And there would still be cries of, why didn’t the cop do something to protect that innocent 13 year old?
Tell me what else could have realistically happened. You saw the latest video from the neighbor’s security cam. The 15 year old was raising her hand with the life, in a rage. Do you think she wasn’t going to stab the 13 year old?
I’ll hang up and listen for my answer.
I confess, I don't know what could have happened. I do know that a 15-year-old girl being shot dead by a cop is a terrible outcome, no matter how you spin it. And again, I do not and have not blamed the cop here.
-
You're right. The 13 year old could have lived after being stabbed a bunch o’ times by the 15 year old.
And there would still be cries of, why didn’t the cop do something to protect that innocent 13 year old?
Tell me what else could have realistically happened. You saw the latest video from the neighbor’s security cam. The 15 year old was raising her hand with the life, in a rage. Do you think she wasn’t going to stab the 13 year old?
I’ll hang up and listen for my answer.
This is how utterly insane, stupid, and sick the cop haters and race baiters in this country have become. Justification of a shooting of a black person on video in the act of attempted murder is now debated and there’s shades of gray.
-
I confess, I don't know what could have happened. I do know that a 15-year-old girl being shot dead by a cop is a terrible outcome, no matter how you spin it. And again, I do not and have not blamed the cop here.
I don’t think it can be spun. It’s a horrible outcome. I also don’t know if the 13 year old was innocent in all of this, not that it justifies getting the 15 year old’s actions. But the fact is the 13 year old, unarmed girl was about to be stabbed.
-
why is it so hard for people like lebron to just be honest here and apologize to(and thank) the police officer and call off his dogs
I mean he deleted it. Walked back on it. The only way you're getting an apology is if your boys apologize as well which doesn't happen so we keep circling the toilet bowl aine?
-
If you think the biggest problem with this issue is what a celebrity or athlete tweeted or said, then you’re part of the problem.
Policing in this country needs a thorough re-examination. Economic disparity amongst communities needs a thorough re-examination. Racism permeating our society at all levels in 2021 needs a thorough re-examination. These are the things that are important.
Deflection or whataboutism just kicks the can down the road. These things will keep happening and as they do, things will get progressively worse.
-
If you think the biggest problem with this issue is what a celebrity or athlete tweeted or said, then you’re part of the problem.
Policing in this country needs a thorough re-examination. Economic disparity amongst communities needs a thorough re-examination. Racism permeating our society at all levels in 2021 needs a thorough re-examination. These are the things that are important.
Deflection or whataboutism just kicks the can down the road. These things will keep happening and as they do, things will get progressively worse.
never said that was the biggest problem, but you guys really struggle with some of the points being brought up here then shift to economy. you are the one doing the deflection. if you want to start a thread on economic disparity "amongst" communities, let's do it. you want to start a thread on racism permeating our society at all levels in 2021-start one up. but this thread, as i understood it was about black people getting killed by the police.
that BLM thing raised close to $100 million. we don't know for sure because they won't open the books, but where is that money going? there have been very worthy inner city groups asking for help and,,, crickets. then you see one of their leaders(patrisse khan cullers) buying multiple homes(4 homes for $3.2 million), one of them in a very prominent white area(topanga canyon) in california...racism must not be a problem there.
the george floyd verdict should be significant from the standpoint that MOST everyone agreed with it including myself. that video was beyond disgusting, but the media wants to portray us as polarizing? no no no, but the video of the 15 year old getting shot with a knife midair targeting another young black girl is polarizing? this wasn't based a story being told, this was based on a number of videos from different angles. it was a heroic act by the cop. the fact that there wasn't any collateral damage is remarkable.
just like MOST can be honest about what we saw in the george floyd vidoes, why can't they be honest about the most recent video? lebron needed to go out there and say listen, the cop did his job and protected a life (or lives). we need respected leaders to tell the truth. ALL LIVES MATTER (ALM)
-
rocket
I agree with much of what said in your post. I firmly believe that not every police incident is the same. The dickhead cop that killed Floyd was rightfully convicted, IMO. That said, not every police incident is that clear cut. As I stated yesterday, I am not a big fan of cops but respect them. I fully understand there are bad apples everywhere in society and believe good should not automatically be lumped together with bad.
You are correct, the thread was started due to police shooting and not the economy. I said many times over the last year that BLM should be focusing their efforts on the economic front as much, or more, than on the police incidents. One bad police shooting is too many and I believe anyone with a brain would agree. The black community gets the shaft from banks, landlords, mortgage companies, etc every day and that is a bigger problem IMO.
My core belief is that the inner city needs a ton of help and support from a lot of people, including the cops. Again, if I was leading BLM movement I would spend 90% of my time fighting fairness on the fronts I mentioned in the last paragraph.
I will add that any time there is a bad police shooting, regardless of who got killed, I hope there is justice served. IMO, the female officer in MN made a horrible mistake and believe it should not be lumped in with the dickhead ten miles away. The officer in Ohio likely defused a very bad decision and should not be judged using other recent incidents as the standard. All people are different and all situations are different and all people and situations should be judged on their own merit.
-
never said that was the biggest problem, but you guys really struggle with some of the points being brought up here then shift to economy. you are the one doing the deflection. if you want to start a thread on economic disparity "amongst" communities, let's do it. you want to start a thread on racism permeating our society at all levels in 2021-start one up. but this thread, as i understood it was about black people getting killed by the police.
that BLM thing raised close to $100 million. we don't know for sure because they won't open the books, but where is that money going? there have been very worthy inner city groups asking for help and,,, crickets. then you see one of their leaders(patrisse khan cullers) buying multiple homes(4 homes for $3.2 million), one of them in a very prominent white area(topanga canyon) in california...racism must not be a problem there.
the george floyd verdict should be significant from the standpoint that MOST everyone agreed with it including myself. that video was beyond disgusting, but the media wants to portray us as polarizing? no no no, but the video of the 15 year old getting shot with a knife midair targeting another young black girl is polarizing? this wasn't based a story being told, this was based on a number of videos from different angles. it was a heroic act by the cop. the fact that there wasn't any collateral damage is remarkable.
just like MOST can be honest about what we saw in the george floyd vidoes, why can't they be honest about the most recent video? lebron needed to go out there and say listen, the cop did his job and protected a life (or lives). we need respected leaders to tell the truth. ALL LIVES MATTER (ALM)
All lives matter is very much a deflection. As for respected leaders telling the truth, we can certainly go down that path when it comes to these issues, including policing.
-
author=rocket surgeon link=topic=61896.msg1345389#msg1345389 date=161918152
that BLM thing raised close to $100 million. we don't know for sure because they won't open the books, but where is that money going? there have been very worthy inner city groups asking for help and,,, crickets. then you see one of their leaders(patrisse khan cullers) buying multiple homes(4 homes for $3.2 million), one of them in a very prominent white area(topanga canyon) in california...racism must not be a problem there.
Some friendly advice, rocket: Don't take everything Fox News and the New York Post tells you as Gospel. You do so, and then spread falsehoods here, which makes you look silly.
While some social media users suggested that the purchases were evidence that Khan-Cullors had been enriched by the movement, our research revealed no evidence that Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation funds were used to purchase property. Khan-Cullors has held several other jobs in addition to her work as the organization’s volunteer executive director, including writing a memoir and developing content for Warner Brothers.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/19/fact-check-misleading-claim-blm-co-founders-real-estate/7241450002/
As for BLM Inc. not opening its books, that's because the IRS didn't grant it nonprofit status until December. Now that it has that status, it will be required to file annual reports with the federal government.
Also, this:
https://apnews.com/article/black-lives-matter-90-million-finances-8a80cad199f54c0c4b9e74283d27366f
I have no stake in BLM Inc. one way or another, but if you want to be critical of the organization, back it up with facts, not Murdoch Family talking points.
-
because that's not the topic of this thread and sorry, but i disagree with your premise.
It's not a premise. It's the truth. Sorry you can't see that.
-
All lives matter is very much a deflection. As for respected leaders telling the truth, we can certainly go down that path when it comes to these issues, including policing.
It's not only a deflection, but it it is an intentional attempt to minimize the actual problem.
-
It's not only a deflection, but it it is an intentional attempt to minimize the actual problem.
It's white fragility.
-
Face it, this country is likely headed for civil war. Lots of questions, few answers. The divide is too great.
-
Face it, this country is likely headed for civil war. Lots of questions, few answers. The divide is too great.
I don't imagine there are as many people who have this belief as you think. You live in a very strange bubble if you think this is how the rest of the US thinks.
It's white fragility.
Absolutely. Because if the world is equal in rocket's eyes then he can see himself as a stunning success. But he is too emotionally and intellectually weak to admit that maybe he had a few more advantages in this world than non-whites.
-
Face it, this country is likely headed for civil war. Lots of questions, few answers. The divide is too great.
OK, Alex Jones.
-
Face it, this country is likely headed for civil war. Lots of questions, few answers. The divide is too great.
Idk if its headed to civil war but it certainly shouldn't be 1 country anymore.
-
Idk if its headed to civil war but it certainly shouldn't be 1 country anymore.
You guys need to read some history and quit being prisoners of the moment.
-
You guys need to read some history and quit being prisoners of the moment.
I'm not allowed to believe that ideologically we've veered too far from each other in certain other spots? It isn't a moment thing it's is at least 40yrs in the making maybe longer.
-
I'm not allowed to believe that ideologically we've veered too far from each other in certain other spots? It isn't a moment thing it's is at least 40yrs in the making maybe longer.
Strongly disagree. The US has been through much worse and survived.
-
I'm not allowed to believe that ideologically we've veered too far from each other in certain other spots? It isn't a moment thing it's is at least 40yrs in the making maybe longer.
You're allowed to think whatever you want. It's just a silly thought. The ideological gap between 85 percent of the country is small and nobody is taking up arms against their neighbors because they disagree on the corporate tax rate or background checks at gun shows.
Historically speaking, this country was far more divided 40-50 years ago than today.
-
You're allowed to think whatever you want. It's just a silly thought. The ideological gap between 85 percent of the country is small and nobody is taking up arms against their neighbors because they disagree on the corporate tax rate or background checks at gun shows.
Historically speaking, this country was far more divided 40-50 years ago than today.
Do you have anything to back this up? Because it seems to me that this isn't true Circa 1981 post carter who was basically a red democrat, or Reagan who created Reagan Democrats. maybe circa 1971 given the Vietnam war and such. Of course we didn't have our own president insight an insurrection because he was a sore loser but there's enough other things going on then that I may agree and have said the same thing then.
-
Do you have anything to back this up? Because it seems to me that this isn't true Circa 1981 post carter who was basically a red democrat, or Reagan who created Reagan Democrats. maybe circa 1971 given the Vietnam war and such. Of course we didn't have our own president insight an insurrection because he was a sore loser but there's enough other things going on then that I may agree and have said the same thing then.
1968 was a pretty bad year, my man.
-
1968 was a pretty bad year, my man.
That's outside the 50 year parameter Pakuni listed.
-
You're allowed to think whatever you want. It's just a silly thought. The ideological gap between 85 percent of the country is small and nobody is taking up arms against their neighbors because they disagree on the corporate tax rate or background checks at gun shows.
Historically speaking, this country was far more divided 40-50 years ago than today.
2015 was a pretty low point for America when the Badgers played Duke in the title game.
-
never said that was the biggest problem, but you guys really struggle with some of the points being brought up here then shift to economy. you are the one doing the deflection. if you want to start a thread on economic disparity "amongst" communities, let's do it. you want to start a thread on racism permeating our society at all levels in 2021-start one up. but this thread, as i understood it was about black people getting killed by the police.
that BLM thing raised close to $100 million. we don't know for sure because they won't open the books, but where is that money going? there have been very worthy inner city groups asking for help and,,, crickets. then you see one of their leaders(patrisse khan cullers) buying multiple homes(4 homes for $3.2 million), one of them in a very prominent white area(topanga canyon) in california...racism must not be a problem there.
the george floyd verdict should be significant from the standpoint that MOST everyone agreed with it including myself. that video was beyond disgusting, but the media wants to portray us as polarizing? no no no, but the video of the 15 year old getting shot with a knife midair targeting another young black girl is polarizing? this wasn't based a story being told, this was based on a number of videos from different angles. it was a heroic act by the cop. the fact that there wasn't any collateral damage is remarkable.
just like MOST can be honest about what we saw in the george floyd vidoes, why can't they be honest about the most recent video? lebron needed to go out there and say listen, the cop did his job and protected a life (or lives). we need respected leaders to tell the truth. ALL LIVES MATTER (ALM)
roc, I don't think anyone on here is defending the clowns at BLM, Inc. We defend the concept that Black Lives Matter. If I started a "charity" called Lyme Disease is Bad and used proceeds to funnel money to Badger Football would you automatically default to Lyme Disease is Good? No one is saying support BLM GN, what the vast majority of people are saying is listen to the struggles of those amongst us who are disenfranchised. Don't let some opportunists who stole the name for their own cause ruin a good thing.
-
Based on what we know today, I don't see how anybody can blame the Columbus police officer for shooting the 15-year-old with the knife. Sad outcome, but seems pretty unavoidable if one doesn't want the 13-year-old to get stabbed.
I take exception to those who claim that everybody who wants changes to the way we do policing in America "hates cops" or judges all incidents with similar lenses. I mean, I just said that based on the information we have the shooting of the Black 15-year-old was justified ... and I am very much for improving our policing policies and training in this country.
I do understand how many Black people might have an initial reaction of "Here we go again" whenever a cop kills a Black person because system racism is so prevalent in law enforcement.
-
2015 was a pretty low point for America when the Badgers played Duke in the title game.
Fair.
-
That's outside the 50 year parameter Pakuni listed.
Sorry, I didn't see he set parameters. But we were far more divided in the 60s than today.
-
Based on what we know today, I don't see how anybody can blame the Columbus police officer for shooting the 15-year-old with the knife. Sad outcome, but seems pretty unavoidable if one doesn't want the 13-year-old to get stabbed.
I take exception to those who claim that everybody who wants changes to the way we do policing in America "hates cops" or judges all incidents with similar lenses. I mean, I just said that based on the information we have the shooting of the Black 15-year-old was justified ... and I am very much for improving our policing policies and training in this country.
I do understand how many Black people might have an initial reaction of "Here we go again" whenever a cop kills a Black person because system racism is so prevalent in law enforcement.
I agree. One thing that always seems to come up when the decision to charge an officer with a crime is they did it by the book or in line with the training. However, it doesn’t seem like we look at the book enough to see if the training is outdated or could be altered to avoid these outcomes.
It also does seem like the training is a fallback, but is resorted to quicker for some races than others.
It’s easy for me to judge from a distance having never been in any sort of situation like that. Or officers have seen enough go bad that they are overly cautious when defending themselves.
I don’t think all these officers involved in situations like this are racist. I think there’s unconscious biases or other factors causing them to approach similar situations differently, which makes escalation much more likely.
I mean the reactions by officers to Rittenhouse or protestors in Michigan waving guns around was much different than reactions in other protests.
-
Based on what we know today, I don't see how anybody can blame the Columbus police officer for shooting the 15-year-old with the knife. Sad outcome, but seems pretty unavoidable if one doesn't want the 13-year-old to get stabbed.
I take exception to those who claim that everybody who wants changes to the way we do policing in America "hates cops" or judges all incidents with similar lenses. I mean, I just said that based on the information we have the shooting of the Black 15-year-old was justified ... and I am very much for improving our policing policies and training in this country.
I do understand how many Black people might have an initial reaction of "Here we go again" whenever a cop kills a Black person because system racism is so prevalent in law enforcement.
How about waiting more than 5 mins after these incidents and for an investigation to be completed? I think we can all agree on that? They're still investigating this particular attack.
As for "systemic police racism" even if you accept this as fact, and that we have to make changes based on this so called fact, you have to make an honest assessment about whether certain policies will make things considerably worse. If fewer cops kill unarmed black citizens, or all citizens for that matter, but there are thousands more homicides, car jackings, assaults, robberies, rapes, or what have you, we're looking at a total catastrophe. Especially if policing is federalized.
If we are going to calibrate laws that could help in these situations it requires a comprehensive plan that starts with relationships between police and communities. Not with a narrative that cops are gunning down innocent black citizens indiscriminately. Police need more training and funding, not less. No one is going to want to be a cop if they feel they can get sued in any altercation or if they feel they cannot do their job in dangerous encounters.
Police are human. They are not perfect, some are scumbags, and some are racists. The same is true of our entire society but when we make mistakes, or abuse power, the end result isn't death. This is a sad truth. But if you do not have them enforcing the laws of the land we no longer have a civil society. If we can move the needle at all this must be a comprehensive discussion which includes how to deal with potential police encounters and how one should conduct themselves.
-
You're allowed to think whatever you want. It's just a silly thought. The ideological gap between 85 percent of the country is small and nobody is taking up arms against their neighbors because they disagree on the corporate tax rate or background checks at gun shows.
Historically speaking, this country was far more divided 40-50 years ago than today.
Totally, I mean think of “swing states”. Elections are turned because there are large swaths of people, and even states, that vote differently election to election. That’s not a country that is hopelessly divided. The fringe 10% in each side who won’t even befriend someone with a different political ideology aren’t the driving force
-
That's outside the 50 year parameter Pakuni listed.
Ah, yes. My counting was off a few digits. My apologies. And thank you for focusing on my math, and not the actual point that was being made.
Anyhow, between the 60-80s, this country saw:
- A hugely unpopular war which led to massive civil unrest that, on the extremes, included deadly violence by leftists targeting police and other institutions
- The military killing of American citizens at anti-war protests
- The Civil Rights movement and the backlash against it that included church bombings, lynchings and countless murders, including of children
- The military being deployed into states against those state's wishes to enforce civil rights decrees
- The assassination and attempted assassination of multiple presidents and numerous other national political figures
- Enormous, days-long riots in numerous cities that left dozens of Americans dead (but y'all clutching pearls cause the Wendy's got burned down and someone looted the Apple store)
- Soaring crime rates far above where they stand today
- Massive cultural shifts over topics like sexuality, religion, race, etc.
Anyhow, what's your vision for the impending breakup of the United States? Are conservatives living in California and Illinois going to be forcibly deported to Wyoming and Mississippi? Do the 10.5 million Biden voters in Texas and Florida get rounded up into internment camps and eventually shipped off to the Pacific Northwest?
Just trying to get a grip on how this all goes down.
-
How about waiting more than 5 mins after these incidents and for an investigation to be completed? I think we can all agree on that? They're still investigating this particular attack.
As for "systemic police racism" even if you accept this as fact, and that we have to make changes based on this so called fact, you have to make an honest assessment about whether certain policies will make things considerably worse. If fewer cops kill unarmed black citizens, or all citizens for that matter, but there are thousands more homicides, car jackings, assaults, robberies, rapes, or what have you, we're looking at a total catastrophe. Especially if policing is federalized.
If we are going to calibrate laws that could help in these situations it requires a comprehensive plan that starts with relationships between police and communities. Not with a narrative that cops are gunning down innocent black citizens indiscriminately. Police need more training and funding, not less. No one is going to want to be a cop if they feel they can get sued in any altercation or if they feel they cannot do their job in dangerous encounters.
Police are human. They are not perfect, some are scumbags, and some are racists. The same is true of our entire society but when we make mistakes, or abuse power, the end result isn't death. This is a sad truth. But if you do not have them enforcing the laws of the land we no longer have a civil society. If we can move the needle at all this must be a comprehensive discussion which includes how to deal with potential police encounters and how one should conduct themselves.
Bolded is a fantasy you've dreamed up without any sources or facts backing it up.
Italicized is also fantasy. No one is suggesting that cops are gunning down black citizens indiscriminately. I agree, police need more training, but they sure as hell don't need more funding. What do they need more money for? You've seen the arsenal they roll with... that stuff doesn't come cheap. Should more of that money be used to pay police and train them instead of buying APCs etc? Hell yes. But departments don't do that. They buy junk and show it off like a new toy.
Underlined I think we can agree on. But something has to be done. We can't throw our hands up in the air and expect things to organically change.
What would be your opinion of a council of citizens that got to review police officer behavior and track complaints against officers? I think that would be a great first step to combat the 'blue wall' of cops (good or bad) protecting bad cops. What do you think of a civilian oversight committee?
-
How about waiting more than 5 mins after these incidents and for an investigation to be completed? I think we can all agree on that? They're still investigating this particular attack.
As for "systemic police racism" even if you accept this as fact, and that we have to make changes based on this so called fact, you have to make an honest assessment about whether certain policies will make things considerably worse. If fewer cops kill unarmed black citizens, or all citizens for that matter, but there are thousands more homicides, car jackings, assaults, robberies, rapes, or what have you, we're looking at a total catastrophe. Especially if policing is federalized.
If we are going to calibrate laws that could help in these situations it requires a comprehensive plan that starts with relationships between police and communities. Not with a narrative that cops are gunning down innocent black citizens indiscriminately. Police need more training and funding, not less. No one is going to want to be a cop if they feel they can get sued in any altercation or if they feel they cannot do their job in dangerous encounters.
Police are human. They are not perfect, some are scumbags, and some are racists. The same is true of our entire society but when we make mistakes, or abuse power, the end result isn't death. This is a sad truth. But if you do not have them enforcing the laws of the land we no longer have a civil society. If we can move the needle at all this must be a comprehensive discussion which includes how to deal with potential police encounters and how one should conduct themselves.
I feel that’s a pretty drastic take. Camden, New Jersey gave a blueprint on what “defunding the police” could look like. They moved funds destined for the police department to other social services and the officers really worked to make themselves a part of the community. It made huge improvements in a very heavy crime city.
I don’t think it’s what you meant, but if a few instances of police killing a criminal is what it takes to keep other crime in check, that’s pretty scary.
Camden tried to solve the root cause of some of the crime issues rather than ramping up the policing of the symptoms. It may not be able to work everywhere, but it’s a great look at some options out there other than just shrugging our shoulders and saying that’s the price we pay for safety.
-
Totally, I mean think of “swing states”. Elections are turned because there are large swaths of people, and even states, that vote differently election to election. That’s not a country that is hopelessly divided. The fringe 10% in each side who won’t even befriend someone with a different political ideology aren’t the driving force
Yes, exactly.
People look and blue state/red state maps and think there's some kind of permanence to them. Yet 20 years ago, Illinois had a Republican governor and in the 1990s, the GOP controlled the governor's mansion and both houses of the legislature.
Over the past 50 years, the California governor's mansion has been controlled by Republicans more than Democrats.
The reality is, most states are pretty purple and 99 percent of Americans have zero interest in killing their neighbors because they voted for someone different.
-
Based on what we know today, I don't see how anybody can blame the Columbus police officer for shooting the 15-year-old with the knife. Sad outcome, but seems pretty unavoidable if one doesn't want the 13-year-old to get stabbed.
I'll be honest, other than the immediate visceral reaction to the news that a 15 year old girl was killed by a police...much of which has been walked back as more information came out...I haven't seen any criticism of the shooting. I think all reasonable people agree it was a justified shooting.
That being said, I don't think that means we can't have a conversation about what, if anything, could have been done better. That doesn't mean the shooting was unjustified, it's just a recognition that even a justified outcome can still be a terrible outcome and we should always reflect on how we can do better in the future.
-
Totally, I mean think of “swing states”. Elections are turned because there are large swaths of people, and even states, that vote differently election to election. That’s not a country that is hopelessly divided. The fringe 10% in each side who won’t even befriend someone with a different political ideology aren’t the driving force
This cannot be understated. And this is where the media is most culpable for the feeling of stark polarization -- by giving undue voice to the fringe who see no other option than civil war. The fact that the Jan. 6 insurrection caused nearly unanimous condemnation is proof that most folks are not looking to lay waste to the system, as wacky media personalities too often portray the other side as doing.
-
How about waiting more than 5 mins after these incidents and for an investigation to be completed? I think we can all agree on that? They're still investigating this particular attack.
As for "systemic police racism" even if you accept this as fact, and that we have to make changes based on this so called fact, you have to make an honest assessment about whether certain policies will make things considerably worse. If fewer cops kill unarmed black citizens, or all citizens for that matter, but there are thousands more homicides, car jackings, assaults, robberies, rapes, or what have you, we're looking at a total catastrophe. Especially if policing is federalized.
If we are going to calibrate laws that could help in these situations it requires a comprehensive plan that starts with relationships between police and communities. Not with a narrative that cops are gunning down innocent black citizens indiscriminately. Police need more training and funding, not less. No one is going to want to be a cop if they feel they can get sued in any altercation or if they feel they cannot do their job in dangerous encounters.
Police are human. They are not perfect, some are scumbags, and some are racists. The same is true of our entire society but when we make mistakes, or abuse power, the end result isn't death. This is a sad truth. But if you do not have them enforcing the laws of the land we no longer have a civil society. If we can move the needle at all this must be a comprehensive discussion which includes how to deal with potential police encounters and how one should conduct themselves.
I enjoy your basketball takes, Muggs, but when it comes to controversial topics here in the Superbar, you tend to bring up wildly speculative what-ifs that almost surely will never happen because you apparently think doing so helps you prove your points. For example, the part I highlighted in red just isn't a thing, it isn't a logical either/or. But you apparently believe it gives you license to reject any possible changes because, well, WATCH OUT! THERE WILL BE MORE RAPE!!!
So while I agree with you on some of what you say here, so much of it is fearmongering and logical leaps.
-
I'll be honest, other than the immediate visceral reaction to the news that a 15 year old girl was killed by a police...much of which has been walked back as more information came out...I haven't seen any criticism of the shooting. I think all reasonable people agree it was a justified shooting.
That being said, I don't think that means we can't have a conversation about what, if anything, could have been done better. That doesn't mean the shooting was unjustified, it's just a recognition that even a justified outcome can still be a terrible outcome and we should always reflect on how we can do better in the future.
100%
-
Ah, yes. My counting was off a few digits. My apologies. And thank you for focusing on my math, and not the actual point that was being made.
For some reason I don't think you mean this.
Anyhow, what's your vision for the impending breakup of the United States? Are conservatives living in California and Illinois going to be forcibly deported to Wyoming and Mississippi? Do the 10.5 million Biden voters in Texas and Florida get rounded up into internment camps and eventually shipped off to the Pacific Northwest?
Just trying to get a grip on how this all goes down.
In every society there's disagreeing positions. If a person wanted to be left and live in the conservative country go for it. If a person wanted to be right and live in the liberal country go for it. The idea would be you'd have at least an option to see America in each party's ideal vision. what I'd prefer is not to have states that suck up way more money than they give and have woefully low education, high obesity, terrible infrastructure and yet critique every other state, the same states that block any advancement of federal programs, or common sense gun reform, the areas that every election cycle people suck up to saying "we'll bring back coal!" As if it's 1900 again, the same areas that have ignored the separation of church and state for years in their laws and school systems.
The list goes on but you see what I'm getting at, I could do without pretty much the entire south and most of the Rocky mountain states. I think differing views are healthy but there's too much much overrepresentation of rural people in the states.
-
This cannot be understated. And this is where the media is most culpable for the feeling of stark polarization -- by giving undue voice to the fringe who see no other option than civil war. The fact that the Jan. 6 insurrection caused nearly unanimous condemnation is proof that most folks are not looking to lay waste to the system, as wacky media personalities too often portray the other side as doing.
Errr, I hate to tell you, but...
Republicans Still Sympathize With the Insurrection
They identify with the people who stormed the Capitol.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/republican-party-sympathize-capitol-insurrection.html
"In polls taken shortly after Jan. 6, roughly 15 percent of Republicans openly endorsed the rebellion. They did so even when survey questions explicitly called it an “attack,” “storming,” and “taking over” the Capitol. But other questions found broader support. Twenty-three percent of Republicans agreed that “in America today … it can be acceptable for people to use force or violence to try to achieve political goals.” Forty-two percent, when asked about the people who “took over” the Capitol, said they were “mostly peaceful.” Forty-five percent rejected the notion that “those who participated in the storming of the Capitol” were “criminals.” Instead, this half of the Republican base chose an alternative description of the invaders: “They went too far, but they had a point.” Fifty-one percent of Republicans said the party’s leaders “did not go far enough” on Jan. 6 to overturn the election. Only 27 percent called the attack terrorism, and only 19 percent called it a coup attempt.
These sentiments don’t seem to have waned. Since January, the share of Republicans who insist that President Joe Biden did not “legitimately win the election,” nearly 80 percent of the GOP, has hardly budged. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans say Trump won the election, and nearly 30 percent say they’ll “never accept” Biden as president. Two weeks ago, by a two-to-one ratio, Republicans reaffirmed their view that the election was “stolen” from Trump. Last week, 70 percent said there had been enough fraud to change the election’s outcome."
-
I’m not calling it fake news, but I don’t put much weight behind a pretty left slanted publication like Slate picking and choosing tidbits from polls with less than 1000 Republican respondents and thus claiming vast majority of right of center Americans supported the insurrection and still think the election was stolen. Same way I wouldn’t deeply take to heart an article from the Washington Examiner citing polls claiming liberal Americans overwhelmingly support the abolition of police forces
-
For some reason I don't think you mean this.
In every society there's disagreeing positions. If a person wanted to be left and live in the conservative country go for it. If a person wanted to be right and live in the liberal country go for it. The idea would be you'd have at least an option to see America in each party's ideal vision. what I'd prefer is not to have states that suck up way more money than they give and have woefully low education, high obesity, terrible infrastructure and yet critique every other state, the same states that block any advancement of federal programs, or common sense gun reform, the areas that every election cycle people suck up to saying "we'll bring back coal!" As if it's 1900 again, the same areas that have ignored the separation of church and state for years in their laws and school systems.
The list goes on but you see what I'm getting at, I could do without pretty much the entire south and most of the Rocky mountain states. I think differing views are healthy but there's too much much overrepresentation of rural people in the states.
Wow, that went full on stereotype fast.
Also, do you believe the South is just straight up right leaning inbreds or something? Like did you forget that Georgia voted Biden or that Florida passed a 15/hr min wage?
-
Wow, that went full on stereotype fast.
Also, do you believe the South is just straight up right leaning inbreds or something? Like did you forget that Georgia voted Biden or that Florida passed a 15/hr min wage?
What did Georgia do immediately after voting Biden? They passed some of the craziest voting restrictions out there. Idk why you're bringing up Florida or Georgia though while yes they're in the south they're clearly not the states I was really talking about.
-
What did Georgia do immediately after voting Biden? They passed some of the craziest voting restrictions out there. Idk why you're bringing up Florida or Georgia though while yes they're in the south they're clearly not the states I was really talking about.
You'll find out real quick that if you come at someone (or a state) with a "I'm superior to you" attitude your gunna have a bad time. Just an fyi.
-
You'll find out real quick that if you come at someone (or a state) with a "I'm superior to you" attitude your gunna have a bad time. Just an fyi.
So rather than addressing what I said this is your response?
And I do that visiting Arizona twice a year and only had a bad time once.
-
What did Georgia do immediately after voting Biden? They passed some of the craziest voting restrictions out there. Idk why you're bringing up Florida or Georgia though while yes they're in the south they're clearly not the states I was really talking about.
So you’re talking “the entire south” but not including GA or FL, which is almost 55% of the southern population if your not including Tennessee in the South, 48% if you are.
Then there is NC. With a Democrat for a governor and one of their senators was one of only a handful to vote to impeach Trump. Add NC and you have 2/3 of the South in “not what I meant by the South”.
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are not going to turn any tides in this country unless you’re talking CFB
-
So you’re talking “the entire south” but not including GA or FL, which is almost 55% of the southern population if your not including Tennessee in the South, 48% if you are.
Then there is NC. With a Democrat for a governor and one of their senators was one of only a handful to vote to impeach Trump. Add NC and you have 2/3 of the South in “not what I meant by the South”.
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are not going to turn any tides in this country unless you’re talking CFB
I'm not asking to turn any tides here, and it's not just the red states, I'm not pro New Mexico or AZ either. I'd prefer to cut the top 10-15 from this list. (misremembered where Arkansas is on there)
https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
Edit: for the record if we abolished the electoral college then I'm very much in favor of keeping the country as is. But I stand by its BS that the overrepresentation that so many rural states and populations get.
-
I’m not calling it fake news, but I don’t put much weight behind a pretty left slanted publication like Slate picking and choosing tidbits from polls with less than 1000 Republican respondents and thus claiming vast majority of right of center Americans supported the insurrection and still think the election was stolen. Same way I wouldn’t deeply take to heart an article from the Washington Examiner citing polls claiming liberal Americans overwhelmingly support the abolition of police forces
Feel free to Google other polls from other sources. I believe you'll find that far from the "nearly unanimous condemnation" the poster mentioned, a terrifyingly large swath of Republicans sympathized with the insurrectionists and continue to do so.
Further, i don't think the majority of Republicans can be described as "right of center" any longer.
-
Not to mention a terrifying swath of GQP elected officials who not only don't condemn the deadly coup attempt but claim it was both righteous and "no big deal." And a few of 'em even helped incite it.
-
The sedition caucus.
-
roc, I don't think anyone on here is defending the clowns at BLM, Inc. We defend the concept that Black Lives Matter. If I started a "charity" called Lyme Disease is Bad and used proceeds to funnel money to Badger Football would you automatically default to Lyme Disease is Good? No one is saying support BLM GN, what the vast majority of people are saying is listen to the struggles of those amongst us who are disenfranchised. Don't let some opportunists who stole the name for their own cause ruin a good thing.
lens brother, i hope you are right on the "the clowns". understand the "concept" of BLM is what? their web site? i disagree with pretty much all of the web site. black lives absolutely do matter, yes yes yes, but then the "clowns" take it to another level that is disturbing to say the least. the violence and destruction is not acceptable. all lives suffer from their actions. particularly the inner city people. walgreens in san francisco, for example, closed 10 stores. where will those people get their Rx's filled, not to mention everything else wally's sells-sundries, food, etc
so what is BLM? if i try to tell my coach i ain't wearing that black patch on my jersey, that opens the door to some really bad reactions/misunderstandings. in order for real black lives to matter, their leadership needs to clarify some stuff. stop the burning, looting. decry the murders, carjackings etc. leaders lead. lebron, obama, jackson, sharpton only fuel the fires. there are some serious cry's for help in the inner cities that are being ignored by BLM. if they truly cared, there would be no hesitations on their part to funnel some of that money to them. estimations are that they have collected upwards of $100 million. that is A LOT of cash! let's just say that is high. ok, $50 million?
as for the most recent police shooting in ohio-that cop is a hero. he had a split second to react. there could have been far more lives affected. unfortunately it ended the way it did, but the police were called. there was no time for negotiating. that one knife could have affected a lot more lives.
we have been saying countless times-there are some bad cops. the police have to do better policing themselves. it would save us a lot of lives as well, including their own.
-
so what is BLM? if i try to tell my coach i ain't wearing that black patch on my jersey, that opens the door to some really bad reactions/misunderstandings. in order for real black lives to matter, their leadership needs to clarify some stuff. stop the burning, looting. decry the murders, carjackings etc. leaders lead. lebron, obama, jackson, sharpton only fuel the fires. there are some serious cry's for help in the inner cities that are being ignored by BLM. if they truly cared, there would be no hesitations on their part to funnel some of that money to them. estimations are that they have collected upwards of $100 million. that is A LOT of cash! let's just say that is high. ok, $50 million?
My God you still don't get it...
-
My God you still don't get it...
what's with you? you should pray a little for some understanding and acceptance that not all people think like you...thank God
-
lens brother, i hope you are right on the "the clowns". understand the "concept" of BLM is what? their web site? i disagree with pretty much all of the web site. black lives absolutely do matter, yes yes yes, but then the "clowns" take it to another level that is disturbing to say the least. the violence and destruction is not acceptable. all lives suffer from their actions. particularly the inner city people. walgreens in san francisco, for example, closed 10 stores. where will those people get their Rx's filled, not to mention everything else wally's sells-sundries, food, etc
so what is BLM? if i try to tell my coach i ain't wearing that black patch on my jersey, that opens the door to some really bad reactions/misunderstandings. in order for real black lives to matter, their leadership needs to clarify some stuff. stop the burning, looting. decry the murders, carjackings etc. leaders lead. lebron, obama, jackson, sharpton only fuel the fires. there are some serious cry's for help in the inner cities that are being ignored by BLM. if they truly cared, there would be no hesitations on their part to funnel some of that money to them. estimations are that they have collected upwards of $100 million. that is A LOT of cash! let's just say that is high. ok, $50 million?
as for the most recent police shooting in ohio-that cop is a hero. he had a split second to react. there could have been far more lives affected. unfortunately it ended the way it did, but the police were called. there was no time for negotiating. that one knife could have affected a lot more lives.
we have been saying countless times-there are some bad cops. the police have to do better policing themselves. it would save us a lot of lives as well, including their own.
Let’s work together to eradicate breast cancer.
“No way. ALL cancers matter!”
I have a toothache.
“Sorry, but ALL aches matter.”
Do you take this woman to be your wife?
“ALL women matter!”
Steve McMichael has ALS.
“ALL ex-Bears matter.”
We are Marquette!
“ALL college basketball teams matter.”
-
On day 3 of the MKE BLM marches with black Hawk helicopters swarming over head, BLM protesters marched down my street in Whitefish Bay at 1:30am. We greeted them with bottles of water. They gave us high fives.
You get what you give.
WFB cops could have stood “strong” at the border of Shorewood & Bay and kept them from marching on, violence probably would have ensued. Instead people came out of their homes and cheered them on.
That group ended up back on Port Rd and headed south. At 2:30am MKE cops tried to enforce curfew. Used tear gas & rubber bullets. Violence ensued.
roc, those are the same “violent” protesters you’re worried about. On the tensest night of the summer, with the biggest march of the night it was peaceful bc a few residents (MU grads) chose water bottles over guns.
-
what's with you? you should pray a little for some understanding and acceptance that not all people think like you...thank God
Oh I completely realize that people don't think like me. But you STILL lack basic understanding.
-
Oh I completely realize that people don't think like me. But you STILL lack basic understanding.
He put a borderline racist, at best willfully ignorant, phrase into his username. What did you expect?
-
Oh I completely realize that people don't think like me. But you STILL lack basic understanding.
He just wants to be able to use racial epitaphs without repercussions
-
He just wants to be able to use racial epitaphs without repercussions
He appears to be terrified of the time when white is no longer a majority.
-
He put a borderline racist, at best willfully ignorant, phrase into his username. What did you expect?
Jeez...I didn't even see that. Not surprising.
-
Oh I completely realize that people don't think like me. But you STILL lack basic understanding.
I don't know ... I think Black people probably appreciate rocket telling them how to feel, act and choose leaders.
-
He put a borderline racist, at best willfully ignorant, phrase into his username. What did you expect?
I don't think there is any 'borderline' about it at all. If someone does not see that special attention and care needs to be focused on black lives because black people in our society continue to have their lives, at a minimum, made significantly more difficult or, at a maximum, treated as expendable. And that that care/attention in no way comes at an expense to any other race they are either racist or ignorant.
Being ignorant on this issue in 2021 is a choice and removes it as an option. Which leaves racist. Maybe Rocket is ignorant that his position is consistently racist related to BLM, that's a slightly different conversation and I'd have to be convinced it would lead to a different conclusion.
-
I don't think there is any 'borderline' about it at all. If someone does not see that special attention and care needs to be focused on black lives because black people in our society continue to have their lives, at a minimum, made significantly more difficult or, at a maximum, treated as expendable. And that that care/attention in no way comes at an expense to any other race they are either racist or ignorant.
Being ignorant on this issue in 2021 is a choice and removes it as an option. Which leaves racist. Maybe Rocket is ignorant that his position is consistently racist related to BLM, that's a slightly different conversation and I'd have to be convinced it would lead to a different conclusion.
My experience is that it wouldn't. Nothing penetrates the bubble he's built for himself.
-
Back to policing ...
Latest polling shows Americans strongly favor law-enforcement reforms, including 30% of Republicans:
Six in 10 Americans say the country should do more to hold police accountable for mistreatment of Black people, far outpacing concerns about those measures interfering with how law enforcement does its job, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The nationwide survey also finds that concerns over treatment of Black Americans and other minorities by the criminal justice system which spiked last summer amid national protests after George Floyd’s killing have eased slightly since then. But those concerns remain at the highest point in previous surveys dating back to 1988.
The Post-ABC poll was conducted Sunday through Wednesday, a period that overlaps with Tuesday’s conviction of former police officer Derek Chauvin on three charges, including murder, in Floyd’s killing. While the event has the potential to shift attitudes, the poll found no significant differences between respondents interviewed before and after the verdict’s announcement.
Atop a series of law enforcement killings in recent years, Floyd’s death and the nationwide protests that followed appear to have shaken Americans’ confidence in police. In 2014, 54% said they were confident police were adequately trained to avoid the use of excessive force, but that dropped to 47% last July and 44% this month, with 55% now saying they lack confidence in police on this question.
Along with that shift, Americans now support greater scrutiny of police conduct. A 60% majority say the country should do more to hold police accountable for mistreatment of Black people, while 33% say the country is doing too much to interfere in how police officers do their job.
The poll also finds some skepticism of how President Joe Biden has handled the issue, with 42% of Americans saying he is doing “too little” to reform police practices in the country, while 32% say he has done the right amount and 15% say he has done “too much.” Nearly half of Black Americans and Democrats say Biden has done too little on this issue, a significant break from their typical lopsided support of his actions on other fronts.
Opinions on greater scrutiny of police divide sharply along partisan and racial lines, with more than 8 in 10 Democrats saying the country should do more to hold police accountable for mistreatment of Black people, compared with about 6 in 10 independents and 3 in 10 Republicans. And while about 8 in 10 Black adults and nearly 7 in 10 Hispanic adults say more should be done to hold police accountable, just over half of White adults say the same.
Gender and age also play a role, with 67% of women saying the country should do more to hold police accountable for mistreatment of Black Americans, compared with 53% of men. And while half of seniors 65 and older say they support more accountability for police, that rises to 59% for adults ages 40-64 and to 67% for those ages 18-39.
-
Well what these "proposals "will lead to is hamstrung police departments and far more violence and death. Would you rather see thousands more dead? And insisting that our system is systemically racist, or that our citizens are predominately racists, has lead and will lead to more racists. As I have said before even if 95% of Americans conceded that this insistence about ubiquitous racism is true it wouldn't solve these very challenging problems.
You cannot have a comprehensive discussion about change by simply yelling racism, racism, racism, after every single police incident. It starts in the home, in our schools, and on the streets of course. And if you think this is a totally separate issue from so called systemic police racism, or that's it a smaller issue for that matter, you're being intellectually dishonest. The discussion has to include all of these things, including abusive cops, but also personal responsibility, committing crimes, and resisting arrest. It can't just be vilifying police and our citizens for "the system".
Racists lead to more racism.
I agree it’s more than a police situation. I do think we need to look at why people are committing crimes and resisting arrest and not just say stop doing both. Perhaps people are committing crimes because they are desperate. Why are the desperate? Perhaps people are resisting arrest because they are scared. Why are they scared?
-
Jeez...I didn't even see that. Not surprising.
The irony here is that he doesn't believe that all hairstyles matter
-
If we’re still talking about “don’t quit your day job” (as opposed to shut up and dribble which I think is a terrible sentiment), then I guess we just have different interpretations. I’m not telling you that you don’t have the right to express yourself, but I am telling you I’m not gonna take it seriously cause it’s uninformed. Especially in a culture that, for some reason, many people give “celebrities” voices undue weight just cause they are in the public eye.
Of course, we all take seriously what we want to take seriously. Question, how do you know someone is uninformed? I’m sure some cases are easy to decipher, others perhaps not so much.
-
I just learned yesterday my nephew is good friends with the son of the cop who grabbed her gun instead of the taser.
-
I just learned yesterday my nephew is good friends with the son of the cop who grabbed her gun instead of the taser.
Six degrees of separation from manslaughter.
-
He put a borderline racist, at best willfully ignorant, phrase into his username. What did you expect?
Never underestimate the trump effect. He gave these people permission to be openly racist.
-
Never underestimate the trump effect. He gave these people permission to be openly
Slander is the tool of losers
Socrates
-
Never underestimate the trump effect. He gave these people permission to be openly
Slander is the tool of losers
Socrates
Every time you defend racism it reminds me of your greatest hits compilation that shoothoops put together:
I am not surprised by your post. Here is a small sample of some others:
On March 19th you said, “I’m totally against diversity.” “Wojo was too diverse.”
March 4, “Finding racism in everything these days is absurd.”
Jan 7, “DT did more for black people the last four years than any time in history.”
Jan 6, “Police actually shoot more white perps and unarmed Whites than blacks” (try percentage next time)
July 17 “Bigotry and racist have become synonymous with someone I don’t agree with”
July 11 “Tucker Carlson is not racist”
March 2 “The common flu levels more but doesn’t sell like the WuFlu”
“I don’t think the Indians logo is racist” “People who think only white people can be racist are a bit oversensitive” “I was a victim of reverse racism and have seen my own children be verbally attacked with racial slurs simply for being white”
Oct 23 “I think Racist is the most overused term in the English lexicon to the point where it is becoming impotent”
“I’ve never heard an outcry because a black was given a part in a movie” “I don’t think there is a conscious effort to exclude people”
Feb 29 “If diversity is so important to some, why have black awards?”
Feb 26 “Love how people ignore what the Native Americans did to each other long before white privileged European land stealer started coming here. oh and slavery was an accepted practice among the tribes as well. Still acceptable to call me honkey, cracker, snowflake etc”
March 16 “Serena Williams inspires what not to be. Richard Williams is a bigoted uncouth gravy trainer”
Dec 20 “I mainly watch Fox News for anything that reflects negatively on the (Obama) administration”
Aug 31 “Police shooting black youths is an urban myth”
July 14 “Marquette has a Gender & Sexuality Resource Center? Well I guess you have to do something with a Women’s Studies degree.”
June 14 “You guys are going way off the reservation with this racism stuff”
Jan 20 “We have to do something with all of the illegals”
Oct 10 “Why is it that white people were the only ones who run over native people and take their land”
“It seems many of these diversity programs seek more to punish and castigate than celebrate what is unique and positive in all of us.”
-
He put a borderline racist, at best willfully ignorant, phrase into his username. What did you expect?
racist?? so all lives don't matter? you know this includes black lives right? here we go...redefining the words to suit your beliefs and to censor/shut down those you don't agree with using the ever growing term...racist. lazy thinking brew
-
racist?? so all lives don't matter? you know this includes black lives right? here we go...redefining the words to suit your beliefs and to censor/shut down those you don't agree with using the ever growing term...racist. lazy thinking brew
Black Lives Matter
-
racist?? so all lives don't matter? you know this includes black lives right? here we go...redefining the words to suit your beliefs and to censor/shut down those you don't agree with using the ever growing term...racist. lazy thinking brew
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u4sI27BSTJM/V6d99gaPIdI/AAAAAAAAV-Y/E8vHgcrBElEqC13diihHasazDRUS87ZTgCLcB/s1600/Captain-picard-meme-the-stupid-it-hurts.jpg)
-
Never underestimate the trump effect. He gave these people permission to be openly
Slander is the tool of losers
Socrates
It's only slander if it can be proven to be false.
-
racist?? so all lives don't matter? you know this includes black lives right? here we go...redefining the words to suit your beliefs and to censor/shut down those you don't agree with using the ever growing term...racist. lazy thinking brew
Lol. You accusing brew of lazy thinking... lol.
-
racist?? so all lives don't matter? you know this includes black lives right? here we go...redefining the words to suit your beliefs and to censor/shut down those you don't agree with using the ever growing term...racist. lazy thinking brew
The only one here being lazy is you not realizing that saying "All Lives Matter" is a direct attack on Black Lives Matter and an attempt to silence their voices. Because you can't handle that Black Lives might actually matter, you have to find a way to include and center yourself in the discussion. If you don't see how that's a form of racism, you clearly don't understand anything going on in this country beyond the tip of your nose.
-
The only one here being lazy is you not realizing that saying "All Lives Matter" is a direct attack on Black Lives Matter and an attempt to silence their voices. Because you can't handle that Black Lives might actually matter, you have to find a way to include and center yourself in the discussion. If you don't see how that's a form of racism, you clearly don't understand anything going on in this country beyond the tip of your nose.
i can accept how a fireman can have their opinions such as these, but i hope sully ain't on the welcoming indoctrination committee for his "institution of higher learning"
a "form of racism"? so maybe we could cut to the chase brew and just tell us what's NOT racist for criminey sakes. all i'm saying is respect all lives dude. easy. content of ones character and treat others as you would yourself. this isn't rocket sceince man.
-
i can accept how a fireman can have their opinions such as these, but i hope sully ain't on the welcoming indoctrination committee for his "institution of higher learning"
a "form of racism"? so maybe we could cut to the chase brew and just tell us what's NOT racist for criminey sakes. all i'm saying is respect all lives dude. easy. content of ones character and treat others as you would yourself. this isn't rocket sceince man.
You’ve made yourself clear
-
i can accept how a fireman can have their opinions such as these, but i hope sully ain't on the welcoming indoctrination committee for his "institution of higher learning"
You make yourself sound dumber with every post.
-
content of ones character and treat others as you would yourself.
MLK and Jesus would say Black Lives Matter and say people who say All Lives Matter are misguided
-
Y’all have to forgive rocket. He’s distracted by the very honest, above-board “audit” going on in Arizona.
-
MLK and Jesus would say Black Lives Matter and say people who say All Lives Matter are misguided
Source?
-
Source?
Rev Al Sharpton is my guess.
-
i can accept how a fireman can have their opinions such as these, but i hope sully ain't on the welcoming indoctrination committee for his "institution of higher learning"
a "form of racism"? so maybe we could cut to the chase brew and just tell us what's NOT racist for criminey sakes. all i'm saying is respect all lives dude. easy. content of ones character and treat others as you would yourself. this isn't rocket sceince man.
Just keep centering yourself in this. ::)
-
Source?
I'd start with these:
https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Hope-Essential-Writings-Speeches/dp/0060646918
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/0
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/0
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/0
-
Rev Al Sharpton is my guess.
You should probably read the Bible more carefully.
-
You make yourself sound dumber with every post.
saul would be very proud of you. you do know how that one finger pointed at others works out, right?
-
saul would be very proud of you. you do know how that one finger pointed at others works out, right?
LOL...you're being persecuted now? Hilariously ironic.
-
NC's Republican-led legislature quietly trying to weaken one of the state's few effective gun laws ...
Charlotte Observer Op-Ed:
As rates of gun violence rises across the United States, some lawmakers in Raleigh are trying to quietly sneak through legislation that would make North Carolina a more dangerous place for families and communities. With conversations taking place mostly in back rooms and out of the public eye, senators and representatives are seeking a dangerous and irresponsible repeal of the state’s handgun licensing system by trying to pass House Bill 398. Let me be perfectly clear, the repeal of this system will drive up gun death rates in our state and must be defeated.
Evidence shows that firearm licensing is one of the most effective policies in reducing both gun homicide and suicide. By requiring a permit for the purchase of a handgun, a process that goes through North Carolina sheriffs and requires a background check, the permitting system helps ensure that guns are not falling into the hands of individuals who have a history of violence or are at risk of future violent behavior. Federal law only requires that licensed firearms dealers conduct background checks, leaving ample opportunity for people who should not own guns to attain them without a background check through gun shows, online and private sales. This law is an effective tool in addressing gun violence in North Carolina, and we have real world data to prove that.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University attribute Connecticut’s passage of a 1995 firearm licensing law to a significant decrease in gun violence in the state. From 1995 to 2017, Connecticut saw a 28% decrease in firearm homicide and a 33% decrease in firearm suicide. Evidence also shows that a repeal of such a policy would have the opposite impact, with devastating and deadly consequences. The 2007 repeal of Missouri’s firearm licensing law resulted in a 25% percent increase in gun homicides and a 16% increase in gun suicides. Today, Missouri has the 7th highest gun death rate in the country and has the county (St. Louis) with the 3rd highest gun homicide rate.
But the evidence doesn’t stop there – research shows that the presence of firearms licensing laws brought down the gun homicide rate by 11% in cities and large urban counties and had a positive effect on reducing the flow of illegal guns, with fewer crime guns recovered in the state with a licensing law and fewer crimes guns that originated in that state than in other states. And as Americans have seen a rise in mass shootings across the country, it is important to remember that these laws have a great effect in reducing both these horrific mass tragedies and the number of victims from these tragedies.
The evidence is clear to me and hundreds of thousands of other citizens in North Carolina. Our state, while lacking other key gun violence prevention policies, does have this tool. It is a big reason why many of our neighboring states, with the exception of Virginia, which has passed some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the country, have higher rates of gun homicides and gun suicides than North Carolina. But the repeal of this system could have a devastating effect. If North Carolinians wake up five or 10 years from now and learn that their state has higher rates of gun violence than in the past, we can point to the repeal of our handgun licensing system this session as a major reason why.
Yep, we need more guns here -- licensed, unlicensed, whatevs! More, more, more. Happiness is a warm gun. Bang, bang, shoot, shoot.
-
LOL...you're being persecuted now? Hilariously ironic.
persecuted? only you would think that, but the short answer is nope
so, you have 2 prospective/incoming students sitting in front of you-one has a BLM shirt on, the other has an ALM shirt on. do you tell the one with the ALM shirt on that he's stupid and misguided?
-
persecuted? only you would think that, but the short answer is nope
so, you have 2 prospective/incoming students sitting in front of you-one has a BLM shirt on, the other has an ALM shirt on. do you tell the one with the ALM shirt on that he's stupid and misguided?
How old are the students? >18 yrs old? Try to enlighten them as to why the philosophy of ALM with respect to BLM is racist and if, like you, they still refuse to understand I'd tell him he's stupid and misguided. <18? Same conversation but with their parents.
-
persecuted? only you would think that, but the short answer is nope
so, you have 2 prospective/incoming students sitting in front of you-one has a BLM shirt on, the other has an ALM shirt on. do you tell the one with the ALM shirt on that he's stupid and misguided?
I wouldn’t tell anyone they are stupid and misguided. Especially college students who don’t have wisdom or perspective.
But you should. Yet tHe funniest thing is, YOU STILL DON’T GET IT. Saying ALM in response se to BLM is like saying “all lives matter” at a Holocaust memorial. At best it is intentionally minimizing the topic at hand.
-
persecuted? only you would think that, but the short answer is nope
Forget the BS hypotheticals. The reality is you're using a phrase in your username to try to mute black voices. You have had the reasons that action is problematic fully explained. You could abandon this course and move on, or make yourself look worse by continuing to dig.
-
You guys are twisted. Like budajig redefine infrastructure . You guys are redefining racism ALL lives man! Not just black lives. Asian, Hispanic, Romanian, Turkish European...ALL LIVES. Everyone is treated the same with respect if they so deserve.it’s racist to put one ahead of other because of race which is what BLM does
BLM as an organization can go to hell
-
Not just black lives.
BLM as an organization can go to hell
These are the only salient parts of your post, and clearly reflect your true feelings. The rest is just BS obfuscation to make yourself feel better.
-
To me it’s less about the words and more about the meaning. Yes, all lives matter. But the people saying ALM seem to be doing it as a way to ignore the issues BLM (the movement, not the organization) are trying to raise.
-
Forget the BS hypotheticals. The reality is you're using a phrase in your username to try to mute black voices. You have had the reasons that action is problematic fully explained. You could abandon this course and move on, or make yourself look worse by continuing to dig.
Alan, how the he’ll do you know that’s what’s in his mind, or that’s his intent? You don’t.
Your comments are judgemental, overreaching, and not terribly inclusive. Your lens has become so narrowly focused, you are absolutely intolerant of others who try to express support for diversity and inclusion simply with different words. I get it, you also don’t like Rocket, and you let that cloud any objectivity you could have.
I’ll sit back now and take my on line beating from the so-called tolerant Woke Folk. People who don’t know me, and will condemn me without knowing a thing about how I live my life.
-
Great, let's even the playing field starting tomorrow and base everything on merit and not race. I still say God screwed up and we should all look like Waldo. Sure would eliminate many of the world's problems, aina?
-
Alan, how the he’ll do you know that’s what’s in his mind, or that’s his intent? You don’t.
Your comments are judgemental, overreaching, and not terribly inclusive. Your lens has become so narrowly focused, you are absolutely intolerant of others who try to express support for diversity and inclusion simply with different words. I get it, you also don’t like Rocket, and you let that cloud any objectivity you could have.
I’ll sit back now and take my on line beating from the so-called tolerant Woke Folk. People who don’t know me, and will condemn me without knowing a thing about how I live my life.
Do you carry your cross too?
-
Great, let's even the playing field starting tomorrow and base everything on merit and not race. I still say God screwed up and we should all look like Waldo. Sure would eliminate many of the world's problems, aina?
Yep. Hope we can get there someday. Likely not in my lifetime.
-
Do you carry your cross too?
Come on Fluffy, you can be just as bad/intolerant.
-
Alan, how the he’ll do you know that’s what’s in his mind, or that’s his intent? You don’t.
Your comments are judgemental, overreaching, and not terribly inclusive. Your lens has become so narrowly focused, you are absolutely intolerant of others who try to express support for diversity and inclusion simply with different words.
I know what's in his mind because he has told us repeatedly. I know his intent because when the problematic nature of his comments is explained, he doesn't take responsibility, he doubles down.
And yes, I am judgmental of bigotry because I don't believe white silence is helpful. For that reason, I am intolerant of said bigotry.
In addition, trying to mute voices is the antithesis of diversity and inclusion. It's like saying "I don't see color" which is about as anti-diversity as it gets.
-
Come on Fluffy, you can be just as bad/intolerant.
I am intolerant of bigotry. Sue me.
-
How old are the students? >18 yrs old? Try to enlighten them as to why the philosophy of ALM with respect to BLM is racist and if, like you, they still refuse to understand I'd tell him he's stupid and misguided. <18? Same conversation but with their parents.
"...and like you, they still REFUSE to understand..."???
what is that right there? sounds like...there are veys, and there are other veys, eyn'a? you guys are not only racists but bullys as well
-
"...and like you, they still REFUSE to understand..."???
what is that right there? sounds like...there are veys, and there are other veys, eyn'a? you guys are not only racists but bullys as well
Lol.
-
I know what's in his mind because he has told us repeatedly. I know his intent because when the problematic nature of his comments is explained, he doesn't take responsibility, he doubles down.
And yes, I am judgmental of bigotry because I don't believe white silence is helpful. For that reason, I am intolerant of said bigotry.
In addition, trying to mute voices is the antithesis of diversity and inclusion. It's like saying "I don't see color" which is about as anti-diversity as it gets.
i see ALL colors dude! that's what you don't get. God didn't put us here to judge ANYONE based on "color"
-
Lol.
arrogant, flippant bullies
-
arrogant, flippant bullies
Lol. Glad you have found your cause.
-
I know what's in his mind because he has told us repeatedly. I know his intent because when the problematic nature of his comments is explained, he doesn't take responsibility, he doubles down.
And yes, I am judgmental of bigotry because I don't believe white silence is helpful. For that reason, I am intolerant of said bigotry.
In addition, trying to mute voices is the antithesis of diversity and inclusion. It's like saying "I don't see color" which is about as anti-diversity as it gets.
You just made my point. You don’t know him, and how he lives his life.
We can argue this till the cows come home. Until I meet you, I will hold opinion on judging you, but your actions show a narrowly focused lens.
Because Rocket may say he doesn’t see color, that could NEVER mean color is not an issue for him with how he treats people. It could NEVER mean that because he chose words that you would not use to express support for D&I, he must be wrong.
Brew, you simply don’t know.
-
Wooooooooooooah this thread.
-
I still say God screwed up and we should all look like Waldo. Sure would eliminate many of the world's problems, aina?
Waldo's an interesting choice ... almost impossible to get much whiter than that.
I'd have thought you might have said Jesus ... but given that he was far closer to Black or mixed race, I guess Waldo it is.
Sad that Jesus probably would be pulled over for a minor violation, screamed at to get out of his car and, at gunpoint, told to lie facedown in the street. Might even get a knee on his neck for 9 minutes if he objected at all.
"We had to do it," the arresting officer said. "Guy had a god complex."
-
I know his intent because when the problematic nature of his comments is explained, he doesn't take responsibility, he doubles down.
You mean y’all have tried to enlighten him to the one and only opinion allowed and he STILL isn’t genuflecting?!?
Yeah, that’s some nerve Alan.
-
To me it’s less about the words and more about the meaning. Yes, all lives matter. But the people saying ALM seem to be doing it as a way to ignore the issues BLM (the movement, not the organization) are trying to raise.
Just so I understand your point of view: If you say "ALM" or something to deflect attention from the literal phrase "Black Lives Matter" it is problematic and or racist like many have stated on this thread? However, if you criticize the BLM organization that may in fact not be a problem or racist? I just want to be clear on your point here. Ty.
-
You should probably read the Bible more carefully.
Right, The Gospel According to Woke Liberals.
-
"...and like you, they still REFUSE to understand..."???
what is that right there? sounds like...there are veys, and there are other veys, eyn'a? you guys are not only racists but bullys as well
If the shirt said something else that the person didn't realize was bigoted like 'blood and soil' or 'Dan White Society', you explained why the slogan is problematic, and they continued to wear the shirt because they don't see a problem with it then yes......they REFUSE to understand.
-
One of Jaslyn Adams murderers was apprehended. But the race baiters, BLM, and the woke crowd won’t touch this story no matter how common, sick, and depraved it is.
https://www.daily-journal.com/opinion/jackson-wheres-the-spectacle-for-jaslyn-adams/article_efb144b6-a41d-11eb-ab27-3729a8344cdf.html
-
Right, The Gospel According to Woke Liberals.
Nope. The Bible. Read it.
-
So anyways how about this police shooting? Seems to be a case that states police need to be less jumpy?
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/virginia-man-isaiah-brown-shot-by-sheriffs-deputy-after-calling-911-for-help/2649178/
-
Just so I understand your point of view: If you say "ALM" or something to deflect attention from the literal phrase "Black Lives Matter" it is problematic and or racist like many have stated on this thread? However, if you criticize the BLM organization that may in fact not be a problem or racist? I just want to be clear on your point here. Ty.
Black Lives Matter is a “liberal phrase?”
lolololol..
What a joke some of you guys are.
-
One of Jaslyn Adams murderers was apprehended. But the race baiters, BLM, and the woke crowd won’t touch this story no matter how common, sick, and depraved it is.
https://www.daily-journal.com/opinion/jackson-wheres-the-spectacle-for-jaslyn-adams/article_efb144b6-a41d-11eb-ab27-3729a8344cdf.html
False equivalency. Gang violence is a very real issue, that issue is not relevant to police issues.
-
False equivalency. Gang violence is a very real issue, that issue is not relevant to police issues.
Agreed.
-
False equivalency. Gang violence is a very real issue, that issue is not relevant to police issues.
It’s completely relevant because the narrative being pushed endlessly is racist police officers killing blacks without justification, when the real tragedy in black communities is the gang culture being the cancer and perpetrator of taking black lives too young far too commonly. Anything that distracts from the racist police narrative is taboo to discuss, debate, and spotlight.
So while the false narrative of racist police practices continues, the plague affecting black communities will never be addressed and therefore never improve. The real racism going on.
-
Both are tragedies.
-
Black Lives Matter is a “liberal phrase?”
lolololol..
What a joke some of you guys are.
I think he said “literal” not “liberal”.
-
It’s completely relevant because the narrative being pushed endlessly is racist police officers killing blacks without justification, when the real tragedy in black communities is the gang culture being the cancer and perpetrator of taking black lives too young far too commonly. Anything that distracts from the racist police narrative is taboo to discuss, debate, and spotlight.
So while the false narrative of racist police practices continues, the plague affecting black communities will never be addressed and therefore never improve. The real racism going on.
Racist police policies is one of the primary reasons many inner-city gangs exist and continue to be a scourge.
-
It’s completely relevant because the narrative being pushed endlessly is racist police officers killing blacks without justification, when the real tragedy in black communities is the gang culture being the cancer and perpetrator of taking black lives too young far too commonly. Anything that distracts from the racist police narrative is taboo to discuss, debate, and spotlight.
So while the false narrative of racist police practices continues, the plague affecting black communities will never be addressed and therefore never improve. The real racism going on.
Why can there can only be one tragedy?
If I want to take on gang violence who do I call? The police. But if there's a real chance the police mistake you for a threat and attack you are you going to have them on speed dial? Of course not. That then allows gang violence to continue. If the police issue gets fixed up then locals may be willing to confront gang violence with police support.
They might be interlinked but police shootings are not comparable to gang violence.
-
I am intolerant of bigotryanyone who doesn’t agree with me. Sue me.
FIFY.
-
Guys running in here to save rocket like he hasn't been outed as a bigoted scumbag in dozens of other threads.
-
I once again will speak out in defense of how hard it is to be a cop in this country. Accused of racism by people of color. Accused of being the attack dogs of a corrupt government by the boogaloo bois. If the officer is of color, being accused of being an affirmative action hire or an uncle Tom. Accused of (gasp) unionism and told their pensions are drains on society. Told their responses are too slow, inappropriate, over the top, too quick to judgement. It genuinely sucks to be a cop. The competing criticisms are wretched.
The actions of a few reflecting on the many and causing reflexive painting with an overly broad brush.
The only thing that comes close is being a public school teacher.
-
I am curious on how many on here have actually had conversations with the black community over BLM, thoughts on police and general feelings on race issues. I am nosy and often engage black friends on the topic and the responses are always well thought and interesting. Now, before any idiot jumps in and assumes that my black friends all fall into a certain economic group I want to state clearly that 90% of my friendships are with people I see at the health club or via work. I love candid conversations and truly do care and listen to people's thoughts.
Like most things in the world today, I try and take the top 10-20% and bottom 10-20% of the kooks out of my thought process. Over the past couple of years I have finally learned that I cannot stand kooks that are extreme, regardless of their beliefs. I have avoided long time friends because IMO they have become whack jobs and zealots for a cause.
All that said, I seldom go a day without interaction (conversation) with a black person and my experience in conversation is the consensus say that BLM does not speak for them and have been offended by the white supporters that speak on their behalf. Would add that the consensus are more disgusted with the black on black crime than they are with the police issues. Of course the Minneapolis thing was horrible and they were disgusted by it. One friend told me he is more concerned about a loved one getting hit by a car (carjacking, police chase, etc.) than he is concerned about them being injured/killed by the police.
I don't get my nose out of joint with the BLM movement, nor do I get my nose out of joint when someone says all lives matter. Fact is, all lives do matter. I said it yesterday, I think blacks have a crapload of issues to be mad about and bad cops would not be number one.
Lastly, it is funny but a number of my liberal leaning friends made comments over the past week that confirmed my belief that we all have bias, even the biggest talkers. Bias is real, but I believe that most of mankind is good and flat out racism is reserved for the fringe kooks of any group. I don't think it is wrong to want police reform and I believe you can also care equally about the need to end black on black violence. Honestly, any effort (time or money) that I allocate to fix the problem goes to making the inner city a safer and better place. The future of a stable America starts with an improved inner city, not weeding out 3-5% (just picked a number) of ass hole cops, IMO.
-
I think he said “literal” not “liberal”.
I think he wrote literal as well.
-
@Toure: If “All Lives Matter” was real then ALM people would be involved in every human rights struggle. Rather than none.
-
I am curious on how many on here have actually had conversations with the black community over BLM, thoughts on police and general feelings on race issues. I am nosy and often engage black friends on the topic and the responses are always well thought and interesting. Now, before any idiot jumps in and assumes that my black friends all fall into a certain economic group I want to state clearly that 90% of my friendships are with people I see at the health club or via work. I love candid conversations and truly do care and listen to people's thoughts.
Like most things in the world today, I try and take the top 10-20% and bottom 10-20% of the kooks out of my thought process. Over the past couple of years I have finally learned that I cannot stand kooks that are extreme, regardless of their beliefs. I have avoided long time friends because IMO they have become whack jobs and zealots for a cause.
All that said, I seldom go a day without interaction (conversation) with a black person and my experience in conversation is the consensus say that BLM does not speak for them and have been offended by the white supporters that speak on their behalf. Would add that the consensus are more disgusted with the black on black crime than they are with the police issues. Of course the Minneapolis thing was horrible and they were disgusted by it. One friend told me he is more concerned about a loved one getting hit by a car (carjacking, police chase, etc.) than he is concerned about them being injured/killed by the police.
I don't get my nose out of joint with the BLM movement, nor do I get my nose out of joint when someone says all lives matter. Fact is, all lives do matter. I said it yesterday, I think blacks have a crapload of issues to be mad about and bad cops would not be number one.
Lastly, it is funny but a number of my liberal leaning friends made comments over the past week that confirmed my belief that we all have bias, even the biggest talkers. Bias is real, but I believe that most of mankind is good and flat out racism is reserved for the fringe kooks of any group. I don't think it is wrong to want police reform and I believe you can also care equally about the need to end black on black violence. Honestly, any effort (time or money) that I allocate to fix the problem goes to making the inner city a safer and better place. The future of a stable America starts with an improved inner city, not weeding out 3-5% (just picked a number) of ass hole cops, IMO.
Thank you for a thoughtful take, Goose. We disagree on a thing or two but I’m not gonna pick nits.
One thing I will say is that I have never conversed with “the Black community,” but I have spoken to some Black friends/associates.
Our best friends in Chicago are Black and we saw them last weekend when we went back there to visit our grand-twins. The subject did come up, as we talk about everything with them - politics, sports, religion, family, etc.
They believe strongly in the BLM movement, and think it’s about time some eyes are opening. They also have 2 grown sons who are about the ages of our kids; they gave them “the talk” when the kids were 12 or 13, and they still worry everyday that one of their sons will be pulled over for DWB, or will be victimized by racism when they they are walking with their girlfriends.
Years ago, I had many excellent off-the-record conversations about race with Dusty Baker, a guy who has an incredible variety of experiences and perspectives relating to the issue. He told me things in confidence that I won’t repeat here, but one thing he told me on the record: “Almost everything in America these days is about race.” He said that 15 years ago, and I have little doubt he still feels the same. Perhaps even more strongly now.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
-
I once again will speak out in defense of how hard it is to be a cop in this country. Accused of racism by people of color. Accused of being the attack dogs of a corrupt government by the boogaloo bois. If the officer is of color, being accused of being an affirmative action hire or an uncle Tom. Accused of (gasp) unionism and told their pensions are drains on society. Told their responses are too slow, inappropriate, over the top, too quick to judgement. It genuinely sucks to be a cop. The competing criticisms are wretched.
The actions of a few reflecting on the many and causing reflexive painting with an overly broad brush.
The only thing that comes close is being a public school teacher.
tower ... I'm quite certain nobody here has written that being a cop is easy.
I won't list all the benefits of being a cop, but instead I'll focus on this: We as a society give our police officers a great amount of power. They have the power to stop and detain us for any reason they can invent. They can search our property and invade our privacy for hardly any reason at all. They can take away some of our rights and privileges. They can literally take away our freedom. We even give them the legal authority to harm and even kill us under the right circumstances.
To crib from a comic book character, with great power comes great responsibility. For a cop, that responsibility includes making sure neither they or their peers abuse their power. And on that count, police officers in this country have historically done a terrible job. For every bad cop, there's probably a dozen who know he/she is a bad cop and did nothing about it.
So, yeah, the public can (and must) be critical when cops abuse the authority we give them. It's not without reason. The complaints about policing in this country are not unfounded or exaggerated. And for the good cops out there, it must be incredibly frustrating. But instead of thinking "woe is me" or getting upset at the critics, maybe it's time police did a better job of policing their ranks. Their enemy isn't BLM and other critics. Their enemy are the fellow cops who make that criticism necessary.
One more thing ... why, when it comes to criticism, why must we treat cops differently than any other profession?
When someone complains about a crappy journalist or crooked politician, nobody rushes in and says "I feel bad for all the good journalists out there" or "it's so hard being an alderman these days."
-
Lots of good points, Pak.
I look at police officers similar to the way I look at the likes of clergy or teachers. We put so much trust in them.
It's horrific when anybody commits a rape, obviously, but when a priest does it, it's even more tragic. It's terrible when anybody abuses a child, but it's even more terrible when a teacher does it. And when the police officers we trust to protect people and uphold the law instead harm people and break the law, it's doubly horrible.
-
Just so I understand your point of view: If you say "ALM" or something to deflect attention from the literal phrase "Black Lives Matter" it is problematic and or racist like many have stated on this thread? However, if you criticize the BLM organization that may in fact not be a problem or racist? I just want to be clear on your point here. Ty.
Fluffy had a good comparison. If people went to the Holocaust memorial with signs and shirts reading "All Genocides Matter," or tried to rename Holocaust Remembrance Day, "Genocide Remembrance Day," how would you take that?
Would you think, that's a good idea, All Genocides Matter, or would you think, this is "anti-semitism" and a direct attack on Jews? My guess is well over 90% of the people that say "All Lives Matter" would be in an uproar if the above happened...and they would be right.
And that is the point, everyone agrees that everyone's life matters, but the world doesn't act that way. In our society we have ignored the plight of people of color. The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is a reminder of the fact that we need to treat everyone with respect, to highlight the historic mistreatment of people of color.
Just like the Holocaust memorial, and the Holocaust Remembrance Day are designed to remind us all of historic mistreatment of the Jews.
-
The best of Scoop. Several great posts in a row.
Like 82, I think Goose had a great post. Talking is the answer. As Caucasians who cruise through life most of the time (the average Scooper), we often make the mistake of giving OUR opinions on black issues. We forget that blacks are as diverse as whites.
-
I thought Asian Lives Matter and Trans Lives Matter too. Or did those just momentarily Matter? If not, why aren't the Asians and Transes (Transi?) taking away from Black Lives Mattering?
I just get so confused on my causes. I need more bumper sticks to keep track.
-
I am curious on how many on here have actually had conversations with the black community over BLM, thoughts on police and general feelings on race issues. I am nosy and often engage black friends on the topic and the responses are always well thought and interesting. Now, before any idiot jumps in and assumes that my black friends all fall into a certain economic group I want to state clearly that 90% of my friendships are with people I see at the health club or via work. I love candid conversations and truly do care and listen to people's thoughts.
Like most things in the world today, I try and take the top 10-20% and bottom 10-20% of the kooks out of my thought process. Over the past couple of years I have finally learned that I cannot stand kooks that are extreme, regardless of their beliefs. I have avoided long time friends because IMO they have become whack jobs and zealots for a cause.
All that said, I seldom go a day without interaction (conversation) with a black person and my experience in conversation is the consensus say that BLM does not speak for them and have been offended by the white supporters that speak on their behalf. Would add that the consensus are more disgusted with the black on black crime than they are with the police issues. Of course the Minneapolis thing was horrible and they were disgusted by it. One friend told me he is more concerned about a loved one getting hit by a car (carjacking, police chase, etc.) than he is concerned about them being injured/killed by the police.
I don't get my nose out of joint with the BLM movement, nor do I get my nose out of joint when someone says all lives matter. Fact is, all lives do matter. I said it yesterday, I think blacks have a crapload of issues to be mad about and bad cops would not be number one.
Lastly, it is funny but a number of my liberal leaning friends made comments over the past week that confirmed my belief that we all have bias, even the biggest talkers. Bias is real, but I believe that most of mankind is good and flat out racism is reserved for the fringe kooks of any group. I don't think it is wrong to want police reform and I believe you can also care equally about the need to end black on black violence. Honestly, any effort (time or money) that I allocate to fix the problem goes to making the inner city a safer and better place. The future of a stable America starts with an improved inner city, not weeding out 3-5% (just picked a number) of ass hole cops, IMO.
well done goose!! the only thing i would add is our educational system needs overhauling. most everyone loves options within their lives. most black parents would love school choice.
-
I thought Asian Lives Matter and Trans Lives Matter too. Or did those just momentarily Matter? If not, why aren't the Asians and Transes (Transi?) taking away from Black Lives Mattering?
I just get so confused on my causes. I need more bumper sticks to keep track.
interesting to watch if caitlyn's life still matters, eyn'a?
-
interesting to watch if caitlyn's life still matters, eyn'a?
Weird, over two dozen states have anti-transrights bills working through their state legislatures right now, and can ya guess the political leaning of the authors of every single one?
-
Weird, over two dozen states have anti-transrights bills working through their state legislatures right now, and can ya guess the political leaning of the authors of every single one?
Has that guy ever posted a “gotcha” post that makes sense?
-
rocket
I agree completely on the educational system being our hauled. My kids were fortunate enough to have complete freedom in their school choices, but I always said it was wasted on our kids because they likely would be successful regardless of their choices. 100% believe that inner city kids would have benefited more than our kids did.
IMO, family and education makes the world go round, along with green. First two give everyone a fighting chance to get the cash. Bad cops suck, bad parents suck more IMO.
-
rocket
I agree completely on the educational system being our hauled. My kids were fortunate enough to have complete freedom in their school choices, but I always said it was wasted on our kids because they likely would be successful regardless of their choices. 100% believe that inner city kids would have benefited more than our kids did.
IMO, family and education makes the world go round, along with green. First two give everyone a fighting chance to get the cash. Bad cops suck, bad parents suck more IMO.
Goose, I’m not trying being argumentative, and while we probably tilt politically a bit different, my guess is your children didn’t have complete freedom in their school choice.
My instinct is that based off your posting history you have been successful in your professional life, giving yourself the well-earned financial flexibility to live in a great school district when your children were in the K-12 schools (public or private), thus then giving them freedom to choose their postsecondary path.
I say this not as a “gotcha”, but it’s kinda easy to say school choice, vouchers, give parents the freedom to send their kids to any school, but if dug more than one inch into these talking points it’s untenable.
-
Has that guy ever posted a “gotcha” post that makes sense?
No
-
I am curious on how many on here have actually had conversations with the black community over BLM, thoughts on police and general feelings on race issues. I am nosy and often engage black friends on the topic and the responses are always well thought and interesting. Now, before any idiot jumps in and assumes that my black friends all fall into a certain economic group I want to state clearly that 90% of my friendships are with people I see at the health club or via work. I love candid conversations and truly do care and listen to people's thoughts.
Like most things in the world today, I try and take the top 10-20% and bottom 10-20% of the kooks out of my thought process. Over the past couple of years I have finally learned that I cannot stand kooks that are extreme, regardless of their beliefs. I have avoided long time friends because IMO they have become whack jobs and zealots for a cause.
All that said, I seldom go a day without interaction (conversation) with a black person and my experience in conversation is the consensus say that BLM does not speak for them and have been offended by the white supporters that speak on their behalf. Would add that the consensus are more disgusted with the black on black crime than they are with the police issues. Of course the Minneapolis thing was horrible and they were disgusted by it. One friend told me he is more concerned about a loved one getting hit by a car (carjacking, police chase, etc.) than he is concerned about them being injured/killed by the police.
I don't get my nose out of joint with the BLM movement, nor do I get my nose out of joint when someone says all lives matter. Fact is, all lives do matter. I said it yesterday, I think blacks have a crapload of issues to be mad about and bad cops would not be number one.
Lastly, it is funny but a number of my liberal leaning friends made comments over the past week that confirmed my belief that we all have bias, even the biggest talkers. Bias is real, but I believe that most of mankind is good and flat out racism is reserved for the fringe kooks of any group. I don't think it is wrong to want police reform and I believe you can also care equally about the need to end black on black violence. Honestly, any effort (time or money) that I allocate to fix the problem goes to making the inner city a safer and better place. The future of a stable America starts with an improved inner city, not weeding out 3-5% (just picked a number) of ass hole cops, IMO.
My experience has been a bit different.
Black people I know do not choose one or the other with regard to Black on Black crime and negative experiences with Police. I could not say they are more upset by the former.
I would also add that they are more concerned about Police than getting hit by a random car etc..
I don’t believe Racism is as “fringe” as you believe. In fact, one of the problems I experience is far too many White who people believe this. And far too many White people in my experience don’t get involved enough with regard to being a part of the solutions. I see lots and lots of indifferent avoidance from many White people. They are White, it’s not something they have to deal with, so they just avoid people, places, situations, and it isn’t something that is in their daily life other than running into someone at work, a gym, a store, etc which isn’t what we I am talking about.
There are good police. (I know some) There are bad police. (I know some) There are average police (I know some). There are also bad nurses, doctors, just as there are good and average ones.
One small sign of progress is video, and access to video. Video helped Derek Chauvin get convicted. Video, and access to video, helped get charges get filed against Kim Potter etc...
(I have Black people in my family. I have Black friends. I spend a lot of time with and around Black people of all ages and all socioeconomic backgrounds in various types of geographies)
-
Fluffy had a good comparison. If people went to the Holocaust memorial with signs and shirts reading "All Genocides Matter," or tried to rename Holocaust Remembrance Day, "Genocide Remembrance Day," how would you take that?
Would you think, that's a good idea, All Genocides Matter, or would you think, this is "anti-semitism" and a direct attack on Jews? My guess is well over 90% of the people that say "All Lives Matter" would be in an uproar if the above happened...and they would be right.
And that is the point, everyone agrees that everyone's life matters, but the world doesn't act that way. In our society we have ignored the plight of people of color. The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is a reminder of the fact that we need to treat everyone with respect, to highlight the historic mistreatment of people of color.
Just like the Holocaust memorial, and the Holocaust Remembrance Day are designed to remind us all of historic mistreatment of the Jews.
Very well said.
-
racist?? so all lives don't matter? you know this includes black lives right? here we go...redefining the words to suit your beliefs and to censor/shut down those you don't agree with using the ever growing term...racist. lazy thinking brew
Of course all lives matter, and, you’re right, all lives matter isn’t racist on the surface. It is often times used in response to Black Lives Matter as a way to shift the focus from issues for our people of color that many people feel deserve attention and change. Personally, I don’t let it bother me too much, you do you.
People that say ALM for me fall into a handful of categories: they mean and live it all day every day, truly, and are incredible humans, they are sarcastic and dismissive, they are ignorant, they are prejudiced, they are racist. Perhaps you are the first, and I commend you. I would say, if you are the first you would openly acknowledge that Black Lives Matter. If you are the others, you are deceiving yourself and have total control over your beliefs and knowledge.
The response to Black Lives Matter is “absolutely” nothing more.
-
Just so I understand your point of view: If you say "ALM" or something to deflect attention from the literal phrase "Black Lives Matter" it is problematic and or racist like many have stated on this thread? However, if you criticize the BLM organization that may in fact not be a problem or racist? I just want to be clear on your point here. Ty.
I’ve not done a ton of research into BLM Inc., but from why I’ve read here, there are some real issues with that organization. Whether it’s how it’s run or the methodologies. I don’t think it’s unfair to call out an organization.
Calling out the actions of the Catholic Church doesn’t mean you are prejudice against Catholics. Calling out the actions of an organization isn’t necessarily problematic.
Where I think the issue is is when people take anything that mentions BLM, and the response is that should be disregarded because All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter. Yes, they all do.
However, to ignore the fact that Black people have some hurdles that White people don’t have to deal with doesn’t help. In my opinion, BLM is to call attention to these issues and hope to promote change where we get to a point that everyone is treated equally.
It’s not always because people are racist. A lot of times it’s unconscious bias that we aren’t aware of. Acknowledging those biases doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. It’s just something to be mindful of and possibly change if they are harmful to others.
This is a bit long-winded and may be a bit tangled, but just my 2 cents. It’s an incredibly complicated issue that no one has all the answers. Just that hopefully we are all trying to make the world a better place for others.
-
The comparison one of my closest friends, who is black, made to me was that your neighbor’s house is on fire. So they need help. Some says “why should we, all houses matter, not just theirs”. Yes all houses matter and should be cared for and taken care of, but this one is on fire right now and needs assistance. That doesn’t mean the other houses aren’t as important or don’t matter, it’s just a question of direct attention and need at the time.
As for BLM Inc or whatever the org would be known as, his take was a bit more nuanced. He totally gets the complaints and he doesn’t necessarily agree with all of their stances, but if they are fighting for change to help the black community and make progress, he finds it hard to oppose too much. And I totally get that. The enemy of my enemy (racism and inequality, system/institutional or otherwise) is my friend
-
The comparison one of my closest friends, who is black, made to me was that your neighbor’s house is on fire. So they need help. Some says “why should we, all houses matter, not just theirs”. Yes all houses matter and should be cared for and taken care of, but this one is on fire right now and needs assistance. That doesn’t mean the other houses aren’t as important or don’t matter, it’s just a question of direct attention and need at the time.
As for BLM Inc or whatever the org would be known as, his take was a bit more nuanced. He totally gets the complaints and he doesn’t necessarily agree with all of their stances, but if they are fighting for change to help the black community and make progress, he finds it hard to oppose too much. And I totally get that. The enemy of my enemy (racism and inequality, system/institutional or otherwise) is my friend
That comparison is a political cartoon that's been making it's rounds.
http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2014/12/09/a-brightshadow-interlude/
-
Really like those comments, Wags and cheebs. Both are dead-on.
It would be nice if a few of the Scoopers whose knee-jerk reaction is to say, "All lives matter," would weigh in on them. I like to think they can see the logic (and decency) in those examples.
-
That comparison is a political cartoon that's been making it's rounds.
http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2014/12/09/a-brightshadow-interlude/
I think you meant to list this one, from 12/8/14:
http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2014/12/08/all-things-considered/
-
Of course all lives matter, and, you’re right, all lives matter isn’t racist on the surface. It is often times used in response to Black Lives Matter as a way to shift the focus from issues for our people of color that many people feel deserve attention and change. Personally, I don’t let it bother me too much, you do you.
People that say ALM for me fall into a handful of categories: they mean and live it all day every day, truly, and are incredible humans, they are sarcastic and dismissive, they are ignorant, they are prejudiced, they are racist. Perhaps you are the first, and I commend you. I would say, if you are the first you would openly acknowledge that Black Lives Matter. If you are the others, you are deceiving yourself and have total control over your beliefs and knowledge.
The response to Black Lives Matter is “absolutely” nothing more.
excellent comment 21! as i've stated in previous comments-i believe the african american population needs help and support and rightly so. i do mean and i do live it every day. i do pray every day for peace between all men. the voices of the black people who need and want change and help are not being heard. the media gives voice to the wrong people who do not sincerely have the black people's best interests at heart. the media perpetrates the divisions then stands back and watches, then writes a sensational story, wash rinse and repeat. if they would write the good stories, regardless of political leanings, better progress could be made. i thought we were making some progress before as our first african american president was elected, to 2 terms btw...
2 of the most substantive issues black families face-
an overwhelming number, 60-80% of the black population support the police. that doesn't mean they don't think there needs to be changes as i do as well. i've said countless times that the police needs to do better policing themselves. the black population as a whole needs to do better policing itself as well. there are a number of articles that will support this, but i tried to reference one that most here would accept.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/07/usa-today-ipsos-poll-just-18-support-defund-police-movement/4599232001/
black people support school choice by an overwhelming majority. why don't their supposed representatives listen? very simple-because the teachers union gives them(the politicians) more money. regardless of whether or not you think the cato institute is fair and balanced, this is a really well written article
https://www.cato.org/blog/african-americans-speak-themselves-most-want-school-choice
it's hard to have a discussion without some disagreement before progress can be made. people who do not necessarily nod in 100% agreement are not necessarily racist. for fear of being labeled as one, shuts down a lot of good healthy discussion/debate, unchecked demagoguery is perpetrated and nothing is accomplished
-
black people support school choice by an overwhelming majority. why don't their supposed representatives listen? very simple-because the teachers union gives them(the politicians) more money. regardless of whether or not you think the cato institute is fair and balanced, this is a really well written article
https://www.cato.org/blog/african-americans-speak-themselves-most-want-school-choice
Do you then also support a mandate where schools have to accept anyone interested in attending regardless of ability to pay, and where no out of pocket expenses can be charged (beyond a government voucher)? And where they are required to provide free transportation to and from school for their students.
And it would be wrong to not include that they are required to provide free and/or reduced lunch prices to students who qualify, and breakfast for students who qualify. Do you support all of these elements too?
Not to mention that even if all of these elements were put in place, it would still put the burden of finding the right school on parents, who in disadvantaged communities suffer from decades of mistreatment (low education/poor resources), and who may be working 3 minimum wage jobs just to have a roof over their heads. To ease this burden, would you support a program where free consultants found the absolutely best schools for those most in need?
-
excellent comment 21! as i've stated in previous comments-i believe the african american population needs help and support and rightly so. i do mean and i do live it every day. i do pray every day for peace between all men. the voices of the black people who need and want change and help are not being heard. the media gives voice to the wrong people who do not sincerely have the black people's best interests at heart. the media perpetrates the divisions then stands back and watches, then writes a sensational story, wash rinse and repeat. if they would write the good stories, regardless of political leanings, better progress could be made. i thought we were making some progress before as our first african american president was elected, to 2 terms btw...
Perfect. It's the media's fault that your knee-jerk reaction to the pain being suffered by an entire race is to dismiss it by saying, "All lives matter."
-
School districts are more closely tied into home value not a teachers union rocket. That is the modern white flight
-
Just for ol' rocket
(https://i.imgur.com/nf2pdfV.jpg)
-
excellent comment 21!
I don't think you read what he wrote, because what you said after this wasn't exactly consistent with his point of view.
-
I don't think you read what he wrote, because what you said after this wasn't exactly consistent with his point of view.
i can like and agree with his comment without parroting it
regardless of what i say, isn't going to go without criticism of some sort but that's ok. i'm not here to write a book trying to convey everything i believe. suffice it to say that i hope race relations thru and thru continue to improve
82-our media is far from balanced but not solely responsible for the unrest. never said it was all on the media but it sucks big time
-
i can like and agree with his comment without parroting it
regardless of what i say, isn't going to go without criticism of some sort but that's ok. i'm not here to write a book trying to convey everything i believe. suffice it to say that i hope race relations thru and thru continue to improve
82-our media is far from balanced but not solely responsible for the unrest. never said it was all on the media but it sucks big time
It's a familiar theme of yours, a real fall-back position for you whenever there's something you don't like: Blame the media.
As I said earlier, you should read the comments by Wags (a level-headed conservative) and cheebs (don't know his politics) on why "all lives matter" is a horsebleep response to "Black lives matter."
-
Some friendly advice, rocket: Don't take everything Fox News and the New York Post tells you as Gospel. You do so, and then spread falsehoods here, which makes you look silly.
While some social media users suggested that the purchases were evidence that Khan-Cullors had been enriched by the movement, our research revealed no evidence that Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation funds were used to purchase property. Khan-Cullors has held several other jobs in addition to her work as the organization’s volunteer executive director, including writing a memoir and developing content for Warner Brothers.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/19/fact-check-misleading-claim-blm-co-founders-real-estate/7241450002/
As for BLM Inc. not opening its books, that's because the IRS didn't grant it nonprofit status until December. Now that it has that status, it will be required to file annual reports with the federal government.
Also, this:
https://apnews.com/article/black-lives-matter-90-million-finances-8a80cad199f54c0c4b9e74283d27366f
I have no stake in BLM Inc. one way or another, but if you want to be critical of the organization, back it up with facts, not Murdoch Family talking points.
Well to be honest, I have found discarded NY Posts on the subway to be great for lining the litter box.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/business/media/new-york-post-kamala-harris.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/550599-reporter-who-wrote-viral-ny-post-story-about-harris-book-at-the-border-resigns
-
Well to be honest, I have found discarded NY Posts on the subway to be great for lining the litter box.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/business/media/new-york-post-kamala-harris.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/550599-reporter-who-wrote-viral-ny-post-story-about-harris-book-at-the-border-resigns
No respectable cat would use a litterbox lined with the New York Post.
-
No respectable cat would use a litterbox lined with the New York Post.
They like to poop on Muschnick.
-
The police have made a real mess of things in Elizabeth City, NC, a town of about 20K in far northeastern NC, where cops shot Andrew Brown Jr. with what a private autopsy called "a kill shot in the back of the head."
In addition to what looks like an unnecessary kill, anger has been fueled by failure to release any police body-cam footage in the week since the shooting. There have been verbal conflicts between protesters and police, but the only physical contact appeared to come last night, when police forcefully arrested protesters for violating curfew.
At one point, protesters asked: “Why are you in riot gear? There’s no riot here!”
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper has called for a special prosecutor to investigate Brown’s death. And the FBI has launched a civil rights investigation into the shooting.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article250992969.html?
In other words, just another week in America.
-
For the aggrieved "all lives matter" set who believe white folks aren't getting equal treatment, here's a white 73-year-old woman with dementia also getting abused by police. So ... Congratulations?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/us/loveland-police-video-karen-garner.html?utm_term=OZY&utm_campaign=pdb&utm_content=Wednesday_04.28.21&utm_source=Campaigner&utm_medium=email
A video released this week shows Colorado police officers laughing at footage of their department’s roadside arrest of a 73-year-old woman with dementia.
The woman, Karen Garner of Loveland, Colo., walked out of a Walmart last year without paying for $13.88 worth of items. Police officers broke a bone in her arm and dislocated her shoulder, according to a lawsuit she filed against the city and the officers.
In the newly released footage, an hourlong video uploaded to YouTube by the law firm representing Ms. Garner, three Loveland police officers laugh while they watch footage of Ms. Garner’s arrest.
“Hear the pop?” one officer says.
“What did you pop?” asks another.
“I think it was her shoulder,” the first officer responds.
“Can you stop it now?” one officer says as they watch the body camera footage of the arrest. “I hate it.”
“I love it,” another officer says, with a laugh. “This is great.”
Before watching the footage, one officer asks another if he had read Ms. Garner her Miranda rights. The officer says he had not.
“I can’t believe I threw a 73-year-old on the ground,” one officer says.
The Loveland Police Department did not immediately respond to questions about the footage on Tuesday.
In a statement last week, the department said that it was investigating the episode, and that the arresting officer had been placed on administrative leave. An officer who assisted in the arrest and an “on-scene supervisor” were reassigned to administrative duties, the department said.
“LPD takes very seriously the allegations concerning the arrest of resident Karen Garner, and shares with the community the concerns about video images that became public,” the department said.
On Tuesday, Ms. Garner’s relatives said they were “physically sickened” by the arrest.
“The Loveland Police treated her like an animal,” the family said in a statement. “They laughed and fist-bumped while they were doing it. They reveled in her pain and did nothing to address it. They relished in stripping her of all dignity.”
-
For the aggrieved "all lives matter" set who believe white folks aren't getting equal treatment, here's a white 73-year-old woman with dementia also getting abused by police. So ... Congratulations?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/us/loveland-police-video-karen-garner.html?utm_term=OZY&utm_campaign=pdb&utm_content=Wednesday_04.28.21&utm_source=Campaigner&utm_medium=email
A video released this week shows Colorado police officers laughing at footage of their department’s roadside arrest of a 73-year-old woman with dementia.
The woman, Karen Garner of Loveland, Colo., walked out of a Walmart last year without paying for $13.88 worth of items. Police officers broke a bone in her arm and dislocated her shoulder, according to a lawsuit she filed against the city and the officers.
In the newly released footage, an hourlong video uploaded to YouTube by the law firm representing Ms. Garner, three Loveland police officers laugh while they watch footage of Ms. Garner’s arrest.
“Hear the pop?” one officer says.
“What did you pop?” asks another.
“I think it was her shoulder,” the first officer responds.
“Can you stop it now?” one officer says as they watch the body camera footage of the arrest. “I hate it.”
“I love it,” another officer says, with a laugh. “This is great.”
Before watching the footage, one officer asks another if he had read Ms. Garner her Miranda rights. The officer says he had not.
“I can’t believe I threw a 73-year-old on the ground,” one officer says.
The Loveland Police Department did not immediately respond to questions about the footage on Tuesday.
In a statement last week, the department said that it was investigating the episode, and that the arresting officer had been placed on administrative leave. An officer who assisted in the arrest and an “on-scene supervisor” were reassigned to administrative duties, the department said.
“LPD takes very seriously the allegations concerning the arrest of resident Karen Garner, and shares with the community the concerns about video images that became public,” the department said.
On Tuesday, Ms. Garner’s relatives said they were “physically sickened” by the arrest.
“The Loveland Police treated her like an animal,” the family said in a statement. “They laughed and fist-bumped while they were doing it. They reveled in her pain and did nothing to address it. They relished in stripping her of all dignity.”
I'd say they could teach a class on "how to raw a civil rights trial," but alas I'm not sure that is a skill in short supply.
Good news though, the public they ostensibly serve will pay to defend them, and ultimately, to settle with their accusers so...
-
https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/04/24/i-dont-consent-young-black-cyclist-holds-his-ground-as-orlando-police-stops-him-and-friend-with-guns-drawn-forces-one-to-crawl-in-case-of-mistaken-identity
Two black men stopped at gunpoint while riding their bikes, detained for hours and made to crawl on their hands and knees while cuffed for no reason.
Why, because they were black, and two black men supposedly robbed someone.
-
https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/04/24/i-dont-consent-young-black-cyclist-holds-his-ground-as-orlando-police-stops-him-and-friend-with-guns-drawn-forces-one-to-crawl-in-case-of-mistaken-identity
Two black men stopped at gunpoint while riding their bikes, detained for hours and made to crawl on their hands and knees while cuffed for no reason.
Why, because they were black, and two black men supposedly robbed someone.
Of Darker black complexion.
-
But our Black friends shouldn't worry. We've been assured over and over that there's no such thing as systemic racism in law enforcement.
-
But our Black friends shouldn't worry. We've been assured over and over that there's no such thing as systemic racism in law enforcement.
It’s the fault of the media
-
Unsurprisingly, the GOP has selected its one Black senator, Tim Scott of SC, to deliver the response to Biden's address tonight. Scott is a highly intelligent man with a great backstory, and he will do a fine job getting across the GOP's points while also empathizing with Black people of all political stripes regarding the law-enforcement problems.
Here's a snippet from the AP article previewing his speech:
Scott, among only 11 Black senators in history, has used riveting Senate speeches to detail his own distressing encounters with the law. He’s described being pulled over 18 times while driving since 2000 and being stopped by a U.S. Capitol security officer who didn’t recognize him as recently as 2019, even though Scott was wearing a senator’s lapel pin.
“While I thank God I have not endured bodily harm, I have, however, felt the pressure applied by the scales of justice when they are slanted,” he said during a 2016 Senate speech. “I have felt the anger, the frustration, the sadness and the humiliation that comes with feeling like you’re being targeted for nothing more than being just yourself.”
At the same time, Scott has remained a party loyalist who seldom makes waves and, like many Republicans, often avoided publicly criticizing Trump. Scott voted against removing Trump from office after the then-president’s House impeachment for fomenting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, saying later, “The one person I don’t blame is President Trump.”
Scott, from North Charleston, South Carolina, nearly dropped out of high school. He tells of a life-changing turnabout after befriending a businessman who became a mentor and stressed the value of hard work.
After graduating college, he entered the insurance and real estate businesses and was elected to the Charleston County Council. He was a co-chairman of the 1996 reelection campaign of Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., an overt segregationist decades earlier. When Scott was elected to the House in 2010, his closest GOP primary rival was Thurmond’s son Paul.
Then-Gov. Nikki Haley appointed Scott to the Senate in 2013 when Sen. Jim DeMint resigned. Scott was easily elected to complete DeMint’s term in 2014 and to his own six-year term in 2016, and is a favorite for reelection next year.
Scott’s background and willingness to discuss racial disparities, a subject infrequently emphasized by the GOP, made him a natural choice for Wednesday’s speech.
“I’ve never been stopped from driving while Black. He has multiple times,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “And he’s sort of opened my eyes to some of the lack of trust” between minority communities and law enforcement.
Again, our Scoopers who seem to like to tell Black folks how they should think and act should read that last quote, from the very white Cornyn. Even he knows systemic racism is an issue. And I'm pretty sure that none of the white senators were ever barred entry from the chambers because of the color of their skin.
I disagree with Scott on some policy issues, and I'm disappointed that he mostly fell in line with the rest of the GOP Congressional caucus in bending a knee to the previous president, but I thought he had a lot of very good ideas in his proposal on first steps that can be taken to reform policing.
-
82-our media is far from balanced but not solely responsible for the unrest. never said it was all on the media but it sucks big time
Well, I guess you're right about the media. The right-wing NY Post supposedly ordered a reporter to lie about Kamala Harris and the border crisis, and the reporter finally resigned in protest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/new-york-post-kamala-harris-correction-migrant-book/2021/04/27/ec297ac6-a769-11eb-bca5-048b2759a489_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F32160cb%2F608987849d2fdae3023ba06f%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F22%2F68%2F608987849d2fdae3023ba06f
A longtime New York Post reporter said she has resigned after being “ordered” to write a false story that claimed undocumented minors were being welcomed to the United States with copies of a children’s book written by Vice President Harris.
“The Kamala Harris story — an incorrect story I was ordered to write and which I failed to push back hard enough against — was my breaking point,” Laura Italiano tweeted Tuesday afternoon, several hours after her viral article about the books had been deleted from the Post’s website and replaced with corrected versions.
Italiano, who has written for the Post since the 1990s, according to news archives, could not be immediately reached for comment.
Since the Post published the story on its front page Saturday, the conservative mediascape has been in an uproar over the supposed distribution of Harris’s 2019 book, “Superheroes Are Everywhere,” at migrant shelters. A slew of prominent Republicans expressed outrage over the possibility that taxpayers were funding the program. Even the White House press secretary was grilled about it.
And then on Tuesday, in a one-sentence note at the bottom of the original online article, the Post acknowledged that almost none of it was true.
“Editor’s note: The original version of this article said migrant kids were getting Harris’ book in a welcome kit, but has been updated to note that only one known copy of the book was given to a child,” it read in full.
In fact, it’s not even clear whether a child actually received that single copy of the book, which was photographed by Reuters on a vacant bed at a shelter in Long Beach, Calif., last week. It was one of many items, including toys and clothing, donated by residents in a citywide drive, Long Beach officials said. No government funds were used to purchase the items, according to a city spokeswoman.
-
I disagree with Scott on some policy issues, and I'm disappointed that he mostly fell in line with the rest of the GOP Congressional caucus in bending a knee to the previous president, but I thought he had a lot of very good ideas in his proposal on first steps that can be taken to reform policing.
What was Scott's response when trump said, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"?
-
What was Scott's response when trump said, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"?
As I said ...
-
Unsurprisingly, the GOP has selected its one Black senator, Tim Scott of SC, to deliver the response to Biden's address tonight. Scott is a highly intelligent man with a great backstory, and he will do a fine job getting across the GOP's points while also empathizing with Black people of all political stripes regarding the law-enforcement problems.
Kind of a Dick Durbin or Jim Clyburn-like comment, hey? Not saying it was intentional, but it shows that even the best intentioned comments can come out poorly.
-
Kind of a Dick Durbin or Jim Clyburn-like comment, hey? Not saying it was intentional, but it shows that even the best intentioned comments can come out poorly.
??
-
After watching the video of the police shooting in Portage park (Chicago). I'm starting to lose sympathy. Is it just me or is the bar getting set lower and lower for people to get worked up over? I have simple logic
1) were you actually committing a crime 2) are you armed with a weapon that could pose a threat (close quarters with knife or a gun in general)
3) are you running away
If these are all checked off the officer has the right to fire.
This applies to the Toledo shooting as well. Quick on the draw? Yes but objectively horrific and worth protesting like many many of the ones from years past? I don't think so personally.
-
Unsurprisingly, the GOP has selected its one Black senator, Tim Scott of SC, to deliver the response to Biden's address tonight. Scott is a highly intelligent man with a great backstory, and he will do a fine job getting across the GOP's points while also empathizing with Black people of all political stripes regarding the law-enforcement problems.
Here's a snippet from the AP article previewing his speech:
Scott, among only 11 Black senators in history, has used riveting Senate speeches to detail his own distressing encounters with the law. He’s described being pulled over 18 times while driving since 2000 and being stopped by a U.S. Capitol security officer who didn’t recognize him as recently as 2019, even though Scott was wearing a senator’s lapel pin.
“While I thank God I have not endured bodily harm, I have, however, felt the pressure applied by the scales of justice when they are slanted,” he said during a 2016 Senate speech. “I have felt the anger, the frustration, the sadness and the humiliation that comes with feeling like you’re being targeted for nothing more than being just yourself.”
At the same time, Scott has remained a party loyalist who seldom makes waves and, like many Republicans, often avoided publicly criticizing Trump. Scott voted against removing Trump from office after the then-president’s House impeachment for fomenting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, saying later, “The one person I don’t blame is President Trump.”
Scott, from North Charleston, South Carolina, nearly dropped out of high school. He tells of a life-changing turnabout after befriending a businessman who became a mentor and stressed the value of hard work.
After graduating college, he entered the insurance and real estate businesses and was elected to the Charleston County Council. He was a co-chairman of the 1996 reelection campaign of Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., an overt segregationist decades earlier. When Scott was elected to the House in 2010, his closest GOP primary rival was Thurmond’s son Paul.
Then-Gov. Nikki Haley appointed Scott to the Senate in 2013 when Sen. Jim DeMint resigned. Scott was easily elected to complete DeMint’s term in 2014 and to his own six-year term in 2016, and is a favorite for reelection next year.
Scott’s background and willingness to discuss racial disparities, a subject infrequently emphasized by the GOP, made him a natural choice for Wednesday’s speech.
“I’ve never been stopped from driving while Black. He has multiple times,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “And he’s sort of opened my eyes to some of the lack of trust” between minority communities and law enforcement.
Again, our Scoopers who seem to like to tell Black folks how they should think and act should read that last quote, from the very white Cornyn. Even he knows systemic racism is an issue. And I'm pretty sure that none of the white senators were ever barred entry from the chambers because of the color of their skin.
I disagree with Scott on some policy issues, and I'm disappointed that he mostly fell in line with the rest of the GOP Congressional caucus in bending a knee to the previous president, but I thought he had a lot of very good ideas in his proposal on first steps that can be taken to reform policing.
You mean the police reform bill that Sen. Scott authored that the Dem's racistly filibustered?
-
After watching the video of the police shooting in Portage park (Chicago). I'm starting to lose sympathy. Is it just me or is the bar getting set lower and lower for people to get worked up over? I have simple logic
1) were you actually committing a crime 2) are you armed with a weapon that could pose a threat (close quarters with knife or a gun in general)
3) are you running away
If these are all checked off the officer has the right to fire.
This applies to the Toledo shooting as well. Quick on the draw? Yes but objectively horrific and worth protesting like many many of the ones from years past? I don't think so personally.
I haven't watched the video.
1. Depends on the crime.
2. Is someone in imminent danger?
3. Not in general, but it depends on the situation heavily. Someone not posing an immediate threat to other people shouldn't be shot.
-
You mean the police reform bill that Sen. Scott authored that the Dem's racistly filibustered?
Scott put a lot of thought into it and there was room to negotiate, but the Dems played political games in rejecting it out of hand.
"Racistly" is your word.
-
I haven't watched the video.
1. Depends on the crime.
2. Is someone in imminent danger?
3. Not in general, but it depends on the situation heavily. Someone not posing an immediate threat to other people shouldn't be shot.
Here's what I know: Known gang member is running from the cops and is armed and dangerous while refusing to drop his gun. He then stops, pulls out his gun, and gets shot.
In any innocent life I'm sad for them. This was not an innocent life and, while it's impossible to truly measure, if he were the next Marion Lewis that pulls out said gun to carjack someone to get away and/or return fire. Then I'm fine with his death.
There's hundreds of truly objectively wrong police killings and violent actions. I stand by my "the bar is getting lower" comment.
-
??
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/503176-tim-scott-responds-to-durbins-warning-about-token-half-hearted-approach-to
https://scnow.com/news/local/jim-clyburn-implies-tim-scott-is-a-token-offered-by-republicans-to-african-americans/article_b81cdb56-188f-11eb-9da0-dbf7c68ac464.html
Again, not saying it was intentional, but the implication is there. And again, it just shows how the best of intended comments can come out poorly.
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/503176-tim-scott-responds-to-durbins-warning-about-token-half-hearted-approach-to
https://scnow.com/news/local/jim-clyburn-implies-tim-scott-is-a-token-offered-by-republicans-to-african-americans/article_b81cdb56-188f-11eb-9da0-dbf7c68ac464.html
Again, not saying it was intentional, but the implication is there. And again, it just shows how the best of intended comments can come out poorly.
If you say so. The Durbin example is not even in the same stratosphere with what I said. The Clyburn one isn't really, either, but I guess I could see it construed that way if one really wants to make that leap. I'll make a better effort in the future.
-
Scott put a lot of thought into it and there was room to negotiate, but the Dems played political games in rejecting it out of hand.
"Racistly" is your word.
the filibuster wasn't racist until 2021, or so I'm told. My bad.
-
This sucks. The police, state legislatures and judges work for us. They are our employees, and we have the right as citizens to learn the truth.
Hours after an officer shot and killed 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant on April 20 in Ohio, police released on-the-scene video from the officer’s body-worn camera.
The Columbus Police Department was able to share the footage quickly because of a 2019 Ohio law that made such videos public record.
But a far different story has unfolded in North Carolina, where 42-year-old Andrew Brown Jr. was shot and killed by sheriff’s deputies on April 21.
Under a 2016 law passed by the N.C. General Assembly, footage from cameras worn by law enforcement officers is not considered public record in the state. Police and sheriff’s departments do not have the authority to release footage on their own.
Instead, family members or the public must petition the court for video to be released, and a judge decides — a process that could take days or weeks.
A North Carolina Superior Court judge declined on Wednesday to release the footage to the public, though it could be shown to Brown’s family. After watching a 20-second clip this week, attorneys for the family said the footage shows an “execution.”
Frayda S. Bluestein, public law and government professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, said she doesn’t think any other states require a court decision before video is released, ABC News reported.
-
This clearly wasn't a shooting, but highlights much of the problem.
In the city I live in, the other day a 10-year old African American boy, was stopped and detained by cops while walking home from school. The reason, people called in saying a suspicious individual was trespassing.
His crime, taking a short cut to get home by cutting through the side yard of a house. He was detained and forced to sit on the curb and wait for his parents to come collect him.
White children are making that same walk, and cutting through the same yards with zero problem. And there is zero chance that if people even called the cops on the white children, that they would detain them.
Now that 10-year old thinks that because of the color of his skin, he will always be targeted by others, and the police.
-
This clearly wasn't a shooting, but highlights much of the problem.
In the city I live in, the other day a 10-year old African American boy, was stopped and detained by cops while walking home from school. The reason, people called in saying a suspicious individual was trespassing.
His crime, taking a short cut to get home by cutting through the side yard of a house. He was detained and forced to sit on the curb and wait for his parents to come collect him.
White children are making that same walk, and cutting through the same yards with zero problem. And there is zero chance that if people even called the cops on the white children, that they would detain them.
Now that 10-year old thinks that because of the color of his skin, he will always be targeted by others, and the police.
He learned early, but it is probably a conversation that his parents already have had with him. Sadly.
-
This clearly wasn't a shooting, but highlights much of the problem.
In the city I live in, the other day a 10-year old African American boy, was stopped and detained by cops while walking home from school. The reason, people called in saying a suspicious individual was trespassing.
His crime, taking a short cut to get home by cutting through the side yard of a house. He was detained and forced to sit on the curb and wait for his parents to come collect him.
White children are making that same walk, and cutting through the same yards with zero problem. And there is zero chance that if people even called the cops on the white children, that they would detain them.
Now that 10-year old thinks that because of the color of his skin, he will always be targeted by others, and the police.
This kind of thing - and worse - happens to black kids EVERY day. Sadly, the police love doing this. Then they denigrate black parents for not teaching their children respect for cops.
-
Here's what I know: Known gang member is running from the cops and is armed and dangerous while refusing to drop his gun. He then stops, pulls out his gun, and gets shot.
In any innocent life I'm sad for them. This was not an innocent life and, while it's impossible to truly measure, if he were the next Marion Lewis that pulls out said gun to carjack someone to get away and/or return fire. Then I'm fine with his death.
There's hundreds of truly objectively wrong police killings and violent actions. I stand by my "the bar is getting lower" comment.
Maybe this is pedantic but I think guilty AND innocent people deserve a chance to survive police encounters, as long as they are not an immediate threat to the life and safety of cops or others. I would prefer a jury of his peers to do determine his innocence, not a cop in the heat of the moment, but too often they aren't given the chance.
Still confused by no. 3 of your criteria you left in an earlier comment. If they are running away, are they still an active threat to an officer? Should they be shot in the back? Is that justice? Obviously are nuanced situations in close-quarters where they could be reaching for something and that might be what you meant.
I get that cops want to go home at the end of the day just like everyone else. And there are situations, like the incident in Ohio, where the initial public reaction was way overblown as the cop was literally trying to save someone from being stabbed. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. But the fact of the matter is that non-lethal (or less-lethal) force has to be the first option used when responding to these situations unless there is an immediate threat. That's often not the case.
-
Maybe this is pedantic but I think guilty AND innocent people deserve a chance to survive police encounters, as long as they are not an immediate threat to the life and safety of cops or others. I would prefer a jury of his peers to do determine his innocence, not a cop in the heat of the moment, but too often they aren't given the chance.
Still confused by no. 3 of your criteria you left in an earlier comment. If they are running away, are they still an active threat to an officer? Should they be shot in the back? Is that justice? Obviously are nuanced situations in close-quarters where they could be reaching for something and that might be what you meant.
I get that cops want to go home at the end of the day just like everyone else. And there are situations, like the incident in Ohio, where the initial public reaction was way overblown as the cop was literally trying to save someone from being stabbed. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. But the fact of the matter is that non-lethal (or less-lethal) force has to be the first option used when responding to these situations unless there is an immediate threat. That's often not the case.
That's why I said it's impossible to know if a guy running from the cops is going to be the next Marion Lewis. Those cops didn't fire at a gang member running away with a gun, and then he tried to car jack people and likely scarred 5 innocent people for life, then shot at cops. Or another example is a guy who was wanted for murder drove away at a traffic stop, lead police on a full around Chicago chase, that resulted in a police officer car collision with a pedestrian vehicle and those two people dying, that guy running and car jacking a car at a gas station (this was all on the news) now if they'd shot at the time none of that happens, a mom and sister return to their family, a young woman isn't scarred for life from car jacking and an a$$ gang member is off the street.
Now I agree regarding non lethal force. We default to deadly weapons wayyy too quick, and I'd be in favor of the loaded clips being non lethal with a deadly clip being in the belt so you have to have to be engaged in a fire fight to have to utilize deadly force. We invest ridiculous money into lethal force research with crazy armory piercing rounds we should give that budget to usually (nothing's perfect) non lethal weapons.
-
This clearly wasn't a shooting, but highlights much of the problem.
In the city I live in, the other day a 10-year old African American boy, was stopped and detained by cops while walking home from school. The reason, people called in saying a suspicious individual was trespassing.
His crime, taking a short cut to get home by cutting through the side yard of a house. He was detained and forced to sit on the curb and wait for his parents to come collect him.
White children are making that same walk, and cutting through the same yards with zero problem. And there is zero chance that if people even called the cops on the white children, that they would detain them.
Now that 10-year old thinks that because of the color of his skin, he will always be targeted by others, and the police.
It is a prime example of the existence of systemic racism in law enforcement.
Those who don't see it simply don't want to see it. And I get that. Folks don't want to believe in systemic racism because it's almost an impossible problem.
-
Another day ... another unnecessary physical altercation between police and a woman who was guilty only of Driving While Black ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/05/10/virginia-trooper-arrest-video/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3246300%2F60995c459d2fdae3024a794d%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F37%2F68%2F60995c459d2fdae3024a794d
Early on March 6, Juanisha C. Brooks was driving home on the Capital Beltway when she saw the flashing lights of an emergency vehicle behind her. At first she thought it was an ambulance, and she steered to the shoulder of an exit ramp to let it pass.
Brooks soon realized she was being pulled over, drove from the ramp to the first side street and stopped.
There, Brooks repeatedly asked Virginia State Police Trooper Robert G. Hindenlang why he had pulled her over, and Hindenlang repeatedly refused to say, dashboard-camera video from the trooper’s car shows. He did not tell her he had noticed her taillights were out as she drove. Instead, he told Brooks that if she would step outside, he would show her why she had been stopped. Brooks told the trooper she didn’t want to get out.
Hindenlang then unlocked Brooks’s door and dragged her out of the car, while Brooks loudly pleaded with him to stop, the video shows.The trooper spun her against the car and handcuffed her. When Brooks refused to take a sobriety test, after telling the trooper she had had one drink, Hindenlang told her, “You’re under arrest for driving under the influence.”
“Why were your eyes so watery when I pulled up?” Hindenlang asked her.
“Why were my eyes watering?” Brooks, who is Black, answered the trooper. “Because people are being shot by the police. I’m freaking nervous.”
At the Fairfax County jail, Brooks and her attorney said, she twice took a breathalyzer test. The results: a 0.0 blood alcohol level. So Hindenlang charged her with resisting arrest, eluding police, failing to have headlights on and reckless driving.
Brooks said she had forgotten to turn her headlights on that night and hadn’t noticed on the brightly lit Beltway. The Virginia General Assembly banned pulling people over for dark taillights, effective March 1, because it led to the type of pretextual traffic stops that can cause unnecessary conflict and consequences for otherwise law-abiding citizens.
After Brooks’s attorney, Patrick M. Blanch, provided the video to prosecutors, Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano dismissed all charges and called for state police to conduct an internal investigation. In a letter to police, he said that “the stop was without proper legal basis,” given the recent change in the law, and that the “dashcam footage does not provide a factual basis to support the warrants.”
Corinne Geller, the spokeswoman for the Virginia State Police, said the stop and arrest were proper. She said Hindenlang observed Brooks driving “without any headlights or taillights, tailgating other vehicles and making unsafe lane changes, which are indicators of an impaired driver and provided reasonable suspicion for the trooper to initiate a traffic stop.” Geller said Brooks was taken into custody “due to her persistent refusal to comply with the trooper’s requests” and because of the trooper’s suspicion that Brooks might have been driving under the influence.
Traffic stops are one of the most common places for citizens to interact with police. But because they have the potential to quickly turn confrontational, such as during the stop that led to the recent police killing of Daunte Wright in Minnesota, many jurisdictions are considering limits on what police may treat as a cause for stops or searches. Virginia lawmakers recently prohibited police from making stops for dark taillights, the smell of marijuana or something dangling from a rearview mirror. The D.C. Police Reform Commission has found that even in areas of the District where White residents are the majority, Black people make up a majority of police stops. Last week, the Minnesota legislature debated a bill limiting pretextual stops by police over minor infractions.
-
As I have said before, police do this because they enjoy doing it. It is nothing more than cruel entertainment for them.
Cruelty is the point.
-
White guy in Texas murders two sheriff's deputies who were responding to dog complaint.
Was this dangerous criminal:
A. Gunned down by law enforcement officers who responded to the scene
B. Allowed to turn himself in after the town's mayor personally intervened to negotiate his peaceful surrender
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/2-texas-deputies-killed-in-west-texas-shootout-after-car-chase/
-
White guy in Texas murders two sheriff's deputies who were responding to dog complaint.
Was this dangerous criminal:
A. Gunned down by law enforcement officers who responded to the scene
B. Allowed to turn himself in after the town's mayor personally intervened to negotiate his peaceful surrender
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/2-texas-deputies-killed-in-west-texas-shootout-after-car-chase/
Why won’t OANN report this?
-
White guy in Texas murders two sheriff's deputies who were responding to dog complaint.
Was this dangerous criminal:
A. Gunned down by law enforcement officers who responded to the scene
B. Allowed to turn himself in after the town's mayor personally intervened to negotiate his peaceful surrender
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/2-texas-deputies-killed-in-west-texas-shootout-after-car-chase/
Status quo for whites.
-
White guy in Texas murders two sheriff's deputies who were responding to dog complaint.
Was this dangerous criminal:
A. Gunned down by law enforcement officers who responded to the scene
B. Allowed to turn himself in after the town's mayor personally intervened to negotiate his peaceful surrender
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/2-texas-deputies-killed-in-west-texas-shootout-after-car-chase/
This is anecdotal, and given time, we'll find another anecdote with the races exchanged.
While I fully realize there is racism in policing .. and blacks are killed at 2x the rate as whites by police .. for every black person killed by the police, there's (almost) two whites killed by police.
It's not like whites are being treated with kid gloves every time they have a police interaction.
They're gunning plenty of whites down too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
-
It's not like whites are being treated with kid gloves every time they have a police interaction.
They're gunning plenty of whites down too.
That's not the point though. It's not about making sure Whites get gunned down too. It's showing that even in grievous situations like the murder of two police officers, it is possible for police officers to resolve the situation without killing the suspect (which should always be the goal). This goes against those that argue that officers had no choice but to kill a suspect. Sure, there are some times when that is true but not in every case I've seen it argued.
It also seems that White suspects are "handled with kid gloves" as you put it at a higher rate than Black suspects in similar situations. As you point out in your post, Blacks are gunned down at about 2x the rate as Whites, that is a problem.
-
This is anecdotal, and given time, we'll find another anecdote with the races exchanged.
While I fully realize there is racism in policing .. and blacks are killed at 2x the rate as whites by police .. for every black person killed by the police, there's (almost) two whites killed by police.
It's not like whites are being treated with kid gloves every time they have a police interaction.
They're gunning plenty of whites down too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
You can google all kinds of videos of white guys refusing to comply with cops, threatening to murder cops, beating up cops, etc. that have a good outcome for the white guy.
Your 2-to-1 number of more whites getting shot doesn't seem quite so good when you consider that are almost 5 times as many whites than blacks.
I also wonder how many whites are shot with their hands in the air or shot in the back. I would bet the number is miniscule.
-
That's not the point though. It's not about making sure Whites get gunned down too. It's showing that even in grievous situations like the murder of two police officers, it is possible for police officers to resolve the situation without killing the suspect (which should always be the goal). This goes against those that argue that officers had no choice but to kill a suspect. Sure, there are some times when that is true but not in every case I've seen it argued.
It also seems that White suspects are "handled with kid gloves" as you put it at a higher rate than Black suspects in similar situations. As you point out in your post, Blacks are gunned down at about 2x the rate as Whites, that is a problem.
This is why I called the original post anecdotal. It is one police story. I guarantee you, there exists another story about a black man who did something just as terrible who was allowed to surrender peacefully. 100s other stories like that, frankly.
Reading one story or watching one video doesn't paint a realistic picture.
The issue needs study without emotion, prejudice, nor through a lens what topics are societally palatable to examine.
Blacks and Whites are gunned down by police at different rates. "Because Racism" is the armchair quarterback answer.
-
This is why I called the original post anecdotal. It is one police story. I guarantee you, there exists another story about a black man who did something just as terrible who was allowed to surrender peacefully. 100s other stories like that, frankly.
Reading one story or watching one video doesn't paint a realistic picture.
The issue needs study without emotion, prejudice, nor through a lens what topics are societally palatable to examine.
Blacks and Whites are gunned down by police at different rates. "Because Racism" is the armchair quarterback answer.
You missed the point again. This example flies in the face of those that say cops have no choice in a given situation, they must kill the suspect. And if you stack up those 100s of examples, you will find Whites "get treated with kid gloves" at a higher rate than Black suspects.
You also misunderstand what racism is. It does not matter if individual cops in individual situations held hate in their heart for people of color. By your own statistics, police kill Blacks at twice the rate of Whites. THAT is systemic racism. I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons for each individual case but if it adds up to Blacks being killed at twice the rate, it is a racist system.
It's not just about the shootings either. It's about the other interactions that have been posted here, Black children being detained for "trespassing" because they took a shortcut through a side yard, a woman getting forcibly dragged from her car having dim taillights. These happen at higher rates with Blacks than Whites. This doesn't even take into account the judicial system where Blacks get convicted at higher rates and receive harsher punishments for similar crimes. It's about the system that leads to these results, not the individual cops, they are symptoms, not the problem.
-
This is why I called the original post anecdotal. It is one police story. I guarantee you, there exists another story about a black man who did something just as terrible who was allowed to surrender peacefully. 100s other stories like that, frankly.
Reading one story or watching one video doesn't paint a realistic picture.
The issue needs study without emotion, prejudice, nor through a lens what topics are societally palatable to examine.
Blacks and Whites are gunned down by police at different rates. "Because Racism" is the armchair quarterback answer.
No, that's why we have statistics.
Whites commit more of these crimes, yet Blacks are more likely to get taken down forcefully.
As you yourself alluded to, it's systemic racism, and it's a major effen problem.
The Kenosha kid who is being hailed as a hero by some, Rittenhouse, would have been gunned down almost immediately by cops had he been Black. And the same people who are calling Rittenhouse a hero would have said, "Good! Blackie McBlackerson deserved it!"
A major effen problem.
-
"He died in a car crash."
https://apnews.com/article/ronald-greene-death-louisiana-eca021d8a54ec73598dd72b269826f7a
-
"He died in a car crash."
https://apnews.com/article/ronald-greene-death-louisiana-eca021d8a54ec73598dd72b269826f7a
Unconscionable and disgusting.
It's totally normal to tell a family that a person died on impact in a car crash....when they died over an hour later after being detained for over 45 minutes
-
"He died in a car crash."
https://apnews.com/article/ronald-greene-death-louisiana-eca021d8a54ec73598dd72b269826f7a
See this is one of the ones that I was referring to as truly messed up and worth protesting over.
-
Those cops really seemed to enjoy it as they tortured and murdered this man. The video was as devastating as the video of George Floyd being tortured and murdered.
-
Three small kids, in separate incidents, shot in the head over the course of about 10 days. One has passed. Just tragic.
-
Three small kids, in separate incidents, shot in the head over the course of about 10 days. One has passed. Just tragic.
Is this the new "But what about black on black crime, blah blah blah"?
Any gun violence is a tragedy, and especially so when the victim is a child.
But it has absolutely nothing to do with police officers killing an unarmed person, then telling his family he died in a car crash and blocking the release of bodycam video proving otherwise for two years.
And if you really believe those shootings were a tragedy, then join the fight for laws and other measures that make it harder for people to obtain firearms, and advocate for policies and programs that have proven track records of reducing violent crime.
Unfortunately, it's typically the people who write posts like yours that often fight the hardest against measures to prevent these things.
-
Those cops really seemed to enjoy it as they tortured and murdered this man. The video was as devastating as the video of George Floyd being tortured and murdered.
You don't actually believe this BS do you? You post weekly about cops loving this or finding enjoyment in it. They have no impulse control, they are bullies, and they are excessively punitive when they deem someone is "defying them". Thats all true and a huge problem without some stupid sociopath angle of gleeful murder. I bet you think parents that lose control and physically abuse their kids "enjoy" that too.
-
Three small kids, in separate incidents, shot in the head over the course of about 10 days. One has passed. Just tragic.
So you seem to be equating cops with gang members. I finally found something that I can agree with you on.
But, your point seems to be that since some blacks commit terrible acts, police should be able to kill other blacks at will.
-
You don't actually believe this BS do you? You post weekly about cops loving this or finding enjoyment in it. They have no impulse control, they are bullies, and they are excessively punitive when they deem someone is "defying them". Thats all true and a huge problem without some stupid sociopath angle of gleeful murder. I bet you think parents that lose control and physically abuse their kids "enjoy" that too.
Wags, watch the video. Listen to what the cops say. That is what I base my opinion on.
Some sick parents DO enjoy abusing their kids. Some sick cops enjoy abusing black men. There is plenty of proof if you are interested. One quick example? Sterling Brown in Milwaukee, where once the cop realized he was an NBA player, threated to stomp on his ankle. That is sociopathic and cruel.
-
Three small kids, in separate incidents, shot in the head over the course of about 10 days. One has passed. Just tragic.
I'm glad we agree that the insanely easy access to guns needs to be rectified.
-
Wags, watch the video. Listen to what the cops say. That is what I base my opinion on.
Some sick parents DO enjoy abusing their kids. Some sick cops enjoy abusing black men. There is plenty of proof if you are interested. One quick example? Sterling Brown in Milwaukee, where once the cop realized he was an NBA player, threated to stomp on his ankle. That is sociopathic and cruel.
I watched the video. I didn't read it as "enjoying it". I interpreted as hotheads were pissed that someone ran from them so they took out their anger, frustration, whatever, on a man well beyond the pale and well after he was under control. That doesn't make it any less pathetic or criminal, but you act like they are high fiving each other laughing as they taze him.
The Sterling Brown incident. Again, pathetic policing, but threatening to stomp his ankle? That was "I don't give a crap if you're a famous athlete, im in control here" Its not cruelty for sport, its need for power and superiority and abuse of it.
You literally said a page ago that cops "love" harassing black kids when someone calls them about trespassing. There is plenty of crap that needs to be fixed about systemic racism in policing and other toxicity without some exaggerating depiction of them as a caricature of a Southern plantation owner from a bad movie. Its blatant projection
Again, none of this is defense of their actions or horrific policing, just framing it all in the proper light.
-
Three small kids, in separate incidents, shot in the head over the course of about 10 days. One has passed. Just tragic.
Chili, you are better than this.
-
I watched the video. I didn't read it as "enjoying it". I interpreted as hotheads were pissed that someone ran from them so they took out their anger, frustration, whatever, on a man well beyond the pale and well after he was under control. That doesn't make it any less pathetic or criminal, but you act like they are high fiving each other laughing as they taze him.
The Sterling Brown incident. Again, pathetic policing, but threatening to stomp his ankle? That was "I don't give a crap if you're a famous athlete, im in control here" Its not cruelty for sport, its need for power and superiority and abuse of it.
You literally said a page ago that cops "love" harassing black kids when someone calls them about trespassing. There is plenty of crap that needs to be fixed about systemic racism in policing and other toxicity without some exaggerating depiction of them as a caricature of a Southern plantation owner from a bad movie. Its blatant projection
Again, none of this is defense of their actions or horrific policing, just framing it all in the proper light.
I wouldn't say they never enjoy it. These two seemed to take some glee in roughing up a 73-year-old woman.
Two former Colorado police officers face charges after they violently arrested a 73-year-old woman with dementia last summer—and then laughed while watching gruesome body-cam footage of the incident back at the police station.
Surveillance footage released last month revealed that after the arrest—in which Hopp tackled Garner to the ground and handcuffed her against his cruiser—the officers went back to the station and watched their body-cam footage of the incident as Garner sat in a cell for hours.
“Ready for the pop?” Hopp said to Jalali and other officers as they gathered to watch. “What popped?” another officer asked.
“I think it was her shoulder,” Hopp replied, before later adding: “I can’t believe I threw a 73-year-old on the ground.”
“It’s like live TV... Body-cams are my favorite thing to watch, I could watch livestream body-cams all day,” Jalali said in the footage.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-loveland-officers-austin-hopp-daria-jalali-charged-for-karen-garner-arrest
-
Chili, you are better than this.
Assumes facts not in evidence
-
I wouldn't say they never enjoy it. These two seemed to take some glee in roughing up a 73-year-old woman.
Two former Colorado police officers face charges after they violently arrested a 73-year-old woman with dementia last summer—and then laughed while watching gruesome body-cam footage of the incident back at the police station.
Surveillance footage released last month revealed that after the arrest—in which Hopp tackled Garner to the ground and handcuffed her against his cruiser—the officers went back to the station and watched their body-cam footage of the incident as Garner sat in a cell for hours.
“Ready for the pop?” Hopp said to Jalali and other officers as they gathered to watch. “What popped?” another officer asked.
“I think it was her shoulder,” Hopp replied, before later adding: “I can’t believe I threw a 73-year-old on the ground.”
“It’s like live TV... Body-cams are my favorite thing to watch, I could watch livestream body-cams all day,” Jalali said in the footage.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-loveland-officers-austin-hopp-daria-jalali-charged-for-karen-garner-arrest
Oh there are certainly instances, without a doubt. Its grotesque. But an overall characterization that police carry out excess force, or racial profiling, or extrajudicial killings cause they "enjoy" is a exaggeration and incorrect characterization. Thats all im saying
-
Chili, you are better than this.
I gotta be honest .. with the murder rate at a 25 year peak, I am finding that argument more compelling each day.
-
I gotta be honest .. with the murder rate at a 25 year peak, I am finding that argument more compelling each day.
What argument?
-
I gotta be honest .. with the murder rate at a 25 year peak, I am finding that argument more compelling each day.
And what seems to be the factor that separates the US from other first world countries?
Could it be, I dunno... guns?
-
Oh there are certainly instances, without a doubt. Its grotesque. But an overall characterization that police carry out excess force, or racial profiling, or extrajudicial killings cause they "enjoy" is a exaggeration and incorrect characterization. Thats all im saying
I agree with this Wags. I never said "all" cops enjoy engaging in awful behavior. I would venture to say that most cops are as appalled by this stuff as I am.
But until they speak up,.......
-
Oh there are certainly instances, without a doubt. Its grotesque. But an overall characterization that police carry out excess force, or racial profiling, or extrajudicial killings cause they "enjoy" is a exaggeration and incorrect characterization. Thats all im saying
We agree.
I used to interact with cops daily in my previous position and the great majority are good people I got along with very well.
But a too-large minority suck as humans. Just not pleasant people. I don't know if it's the job that turns them that way, or the job that attracts people like that, but it's more than "a few bad apples."
-
And what seems to be the factor that separates the US from other first world countries?
Could it be, I dunno... guns?
C'mon Hards, tons of people get killed in Sweden by stray knife fire and in Austrailia by mass clubbings.
Guns don't kill people, amirite?
-
C'mon Hards, tons of people get killed in Sweden by stray knife fire and in Austrailia by mass clubbings.
Guns don't kill people, amirite?
Absolutely. Good guys with guns keep us all safe. ::)
-
So you seem to be equating cops with gang members. I finally found something that I can agree with you on.
But, your point seems to be that since some blacks commit terrible acts, police should be able to kill other blacks at will.
Wrong.
-
And what seems to be the factor that separates the US from other first world countries?
Could it be, I dunno... guns?
no
really lazy, over simplistic, partisan conclusion
bad people, drug abuse, gang violence, black on black crime, mental health, prison reform
it's not as simple as guns
law abiding people do not abuse guns. there are probably more LEGAL guns outside of milwaukee county, yet way fewer murders by guns. same applies to cook county etc etc
-
no
really lazy, over simplistic, partisan conclusion
bad people, drug abuse, gang violence, black on black crime, mental health, prison reform
Bad people, drug abuse, gangs and mental health exist in most every other country.
Not sure what "prison reform" means because US has less prison reform than most countries, so if you are saying we need more, I would agree with you.
Black on black crime is just you being "not-racist-but-being-kinda-racist" again.
-
no
really lazy, over simplistic, partisan conclusion
bad people, drug abuse, gang violence, black on black crime, mental health, prison reform
it's not as simple as guns
law abiding people do not abuse guns. there are probably more LEGAL guns outside of milwaukee county, yet way fewer murders by guns. same applies to cook county etc etc
I don't need to address this stupidity because I've done it time and time again. You can pretend like we don't have a gun problem in the US but the statistics are glaring and clearly show otherwise.
Enjoy the delusion you call life.
-
no
really lazy, over simplistic, partisan conclusion
bad people, drug abuse, gang violence, black on black crime, mental health, prison reform
it's not as simple as guns
law abiding people do not abuse guns. there are probably more LEGAL guns outside of milwaukee county, yet way fewer murders by guns. same applies to cook county etc etc
Mere ignorance isn't enough. Now you have to intentionally, and racistly, come up with excuses to avoid the obvious conclusion.
All the other countries in the world sure are lucky they don't have "bad people"
(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fQ2Ruo6Knrt8f2f3x4SGCBI0vpU=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5938643/guns_country.0.jpg)
-
A year after George Floyd’s murder at the hands of a white police officer sparked global protests and a racial reckoning, a majority of Americans say racism and police violence are serious problems facing the nation. Yet relatively few believe attention in the past year to the issues has led to positive change.
A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows Americans are more likely than they were before Floyd’s death to say that police violence is a serious problem and about half think police who cause harm on the job are treated too leniently by the justice system. The poll also found that about 6 in 10 Americans say racism in the United States is a very or extremely serious problem; it’s similar to the percentage that said the same thing one year ago.
But about half of Americans, including about 6 in 10 Black Americans, say Derek Chauvin conviction of Floyd’s murder has not changed their level of confidence in the criminal justice system. About one-third say their confidence increased. Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer, was convicted in April on state charges of murder and manslaughter in Floyd’s death. A federal grand jury indicted Chauvin and three other former Minneapolis police officers involved in Floyd’s arrest and death after the poll was conducted.
“Racism is a core feature of American life and it dominates certain relationships between African Americans and white Americans in ways that I don’t see how they’re going to change in the near or distant future,” said Kyle T. Mays, assistant professor in African American Studies and American Indian Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.
AP-NORC polling showed a shift in views of police violence and injustice toward Black Americans last June, just weeks after Floyd’s killing. In 2019, just 36% of Americans called police violence an extremely or very serious problem. After Floyd was killed, that number increased to 48%, and 45% say so now. About 6 in 10 say police are more likely to use deadly force against a Black person than against a white person.
At 77%, the overwhelming majority of Black Americans say police violence is a very serious problem, compared with 36% of white Americans. Among white Americans, the percentage saying police violence is not a serious problem increased from 26% last June to 36% now; that’s roughly the same percentage who said so in 2019, before Floyd’s killing.
The partisan gap in views of police violence as a serious problem has also widened since last June. Among Democrats, about 7 in 10 say police violence is a very serious problem. Among Republicans, 58% say it is not a serious problem, compared with 44% last June.
Georgia resident Linda R. Curtis, who was a police officer for 24 years, believes police misconduct is a serious issue, partly because of problematic behavior she witnessed throughout her career. Despite her history within law enforcement, as a Black woman, she worries about her family’s safety.
“When police see me, they don’t say, ‘Oh, this is a retired police officer,’ or that my other half is a retired firefighter or that my two children are sons of a retired police officer and firefighter,” Curtis said. “They just see two Black men and an opportunity. I’ve always taught my sons how to respond when they’re stopped because of what I saw in my own ranks.”
A majority of Americans continue to support sweeping changes to the criminal justice system, including 25% who think it needs a complete overhaul and 43% that it needs major changes. An additional 27% support minor changes, while just 4% think no changes are needed. Black Americans are most likely to call for the largest changes.
-
Chauvin's lawyers are seeking probation because "it's a broken system."
Perfect.
They're saying: "There is systemic racism in law enforcement, so of course our client brutally murdered a Black man."
-
What argument?
I was looking forward to hilltopper's answer, too bad.
My assumption is something along the lines of "this is what happens when you defund the police".
-
I was looking forward to hilltopper's answer, too bad.
My assumption is something along the lines of "this is what happens when you defund the police".
Not about defund the police .. My comments were about this post:
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=61896.msg1350839#msg1350839
Former MKE police chief Flynn summarizing:
https://youtu.be/T7MAO7McNKE?t=70
-
Chauvin's lawyers are seeking probation because "it's a broken system."
Perfect.
They're saying: "There is systemic racism in law enforcement, so of course our client brutally murdered a Black man."
We all acknowledge what chauvin did was brutally wrong but this New York MD needs a little psychiatry help herself she was invited by Yale university to what? Help? This helps no one
'I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f**king favor,' Khilanani said during the talk.
If this lady’s specialty is treating race related issues, her license needs to be taken away. This does no one any good. What if she substituted African American or Asian for “white” ? Not cool. There are better ways to discuss race relations and I would expect better from an MD and from yale.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9652483/Doctor-gave-Yale-talk-called-Psychopathic-Problem-White-Mind.html
-
We all acknowledge what chauvin did was brutally wrong but this New York MD needs a little psychiatry help herself she was invited by Yale university to what? Help? This helps no one
'I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f**king favor,' Khilanani said during the talk.
If this lady’s specialty is treating race related issues, her license needs to be taken away. This does no one any good. What if she substituted African American or Asian for “white” ? Not cool. There are better ways to discuss race relations and I would expect better from an MD and from yale.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9652483/Doctor-gave-Yale-talk-called-Psychopathic-Problem-White-Mind.html
Did you have the same impression of the MD that believes in demon sperm, among other things?
-
https://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article251867448.html
How many armed police officers does it take to arrest a man without killing him and injuring one of their own in the process?
Totally unprepared. What a joke
-
https://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article251867448.html
How many armed police officers does it take to arrest a man without killing him and injuring one of their own in the process?
Totally unprepared. What a joke
I think you're leaving out the part that the man was armed, and shot the police officer first.
-
We all acknowledge what chauvin did was brutally wrong
But if it hadn't been recorded, you never would have believed it.
Meanwhile ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/04/jim-garrison-resign-veteran-mic-cut-memorial-day/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F333b2b5%2F60bb98e69d2fdae302709c17%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F13%2F70%2F60bb98e69d2fdae302709c17
The head of an American Legion post in Ohio stepped down after he cut a veteran’s microphone during a speech Monday referencing how Black people organized the earliest Memorial Day commemoration on record, according to the veterans group.
Jim Garrison resigned after he was asked by Legion officials, the American Legion Department of Ohio said in a statement Friday. The veterans group said Garrison and Cindy Suchan, chair of the Memorial Day parade committee and president of the Hudson American Legion Auxiliary, decided to “censor” retired Army Lt. Col. Barnard Kemter in a “premeditated” move. Kemter shared his Memorial Day speech in advance with Suchan, who asked him to remove a part of his speech, and he didn’t, according to the department.
“They knew exactly when to turn the volume down and when to turn it back up,” the statement said.
As a vet spoke about Memorial Day’s roots in Black history, his mic was cut. It was no accident.
“The American Legion Department of Ohio does not hold space for members, veterans, or families of veterans who believe that censoring black history is acceptable behavior,” it also said.
Why do so many white folks want to cancel the truth about Black people? Why are red states so desperate to keep the truth hidden about the way this country treated Black people for 400 years that they are trying to make it illegal to teach it? Why are so many white people so afraid about admitting that Black lives haven't mattered in America that they respond "all lives matter" when it's mentioned? Heck, believe it or not, some white folks even take their white fear and white victimhood so far that they include "ALM" in their screen names on sports chat sites!
-
Yay this is getting locked too!
-
But if it hadn't been recorded, you never would have believed it.
Meanwhile ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/04/jim-garrison-resign-veteran-mic-cut-memorial-day/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F333b2b5%2F60bb98e69d2fdae302709c17%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F13%2F70%2F60bb98e69d2fdae302709c17
The head of an American Legion post in Ohio stepped down after he cut a veteran’s microphone during a speech Monday referencing how Black people organized the earliest Memorial Day commemoration on record, according to the veterans group.
Jim Garrison resigned after he was asked by Legion officials, the American Legion Department of Ohio said in a statement Friday. The veterans group said Garrison and Cindy Suchan, chair of the Memorial Day parade committee and president of the Hudson American Legion Auxiliary, decided to “censor” retired Army Lt. Col. Barnard Kemter in a “premeditated” move. Kemter shared his Memorial Day speech in advance with Suchan, who asked him to remove a part of his speech, and he didn’t, according to the department.
“They knew exactly when to turn the volume down and when to turn it back up,” the statement said.
As a vet spoke about Memorial Day’s roots in Black history, his mic was cut. It was no accident.
“The American Legion Department of Ohio does not hold space for members, veterans, or families of veterans who believe that censoring black history is acceptable behavior,” it also said.
Why do so many white folks want to cancel the truth about Black people? Why are red states so desperate to keep the truth hidden about the way this country treated Black people for 400 years that they are trying to make it illegal to teach it? Why are so many white people so afraid about admitting that Black lives haven't mattered in America that they respond "all lives matter" when it's mentioned? Heck, believe it or not, some white folks even take their white fear and white victimhood so far that they include "ALM" in their screen names on sports chat sites!
And this has something to do about a black man getting killed by police because........
-
And this has something to do about a black man getting killed by police because........
A lot of the discussion here has been about systemic racism, not just in policing but in American society.
And yes, we do have a poster who proudly uses an acronym in his screen name that he has to know that a significant majority of Black people would find offensive.
-
Sentence for Chauvin: 22 1/2 years. Doesn't seem like enough for a murderous scumbag like him.
https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-sentencing-23c52021812168c579b3886f8139c73d
It's less than the 30 years prosecutors requested ... but it's 10 years more than the 12 1/2 year sentence prescribed under Minnesota state guidelines, with Judge Peter Cahill citing “your abuse of a position of trust and authority and also the particular cruelty” shown to George Floyd.
With good behavior, Chauvin could be paroled after about 15 years. He'd be 60.
-
Sentence for Chauvin: 22 1/2 years. Doesn't seem like enough for a murderous scumbag like him.
https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-sentencing-23c52021812168c579b3886f8139c73d
It's less than the 30 years prosecutors requested ... but it's 10 years more than the 12 1/2 year sentence prescribed under Minnesota state guidelines, with Judge Peter Cahill citing “your abuse of a position of trust and authority and also the particular cruelty” shown to George Floyd.
With good behavior, Chauvin could be paroled after about 15 years. He'd be 60.
There are still Federal Charges pending. He Gowne
-
There are still Federal Charges pending. He Gowne
Good.
-
Chicago police officer killed in the line of duty last night. Another in critical condition. 3 suspects in custody. Criminals have never felt so empowered during encounters with police.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/07/us/chicago-police-officers-shot/index.html
-
Chicago police officer killed in the line of duty last night. Another in critical condition. 3 suspects in custody. Criminals have never felt so empowered during encounters with police.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/07/us/chicago-police-officers-shot/index.html
We should probably drastically reduce the ridiculous number of firearms in this country.
-
Chicago police officer killed in the line of duty last night. Another in critical condition. 3 suspects in custody. Criminals have never felt so empowered during encounters with police.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/07/us/chicago-police-officers-shot/index.html
Your last line is an opinion. As for the rest of your post, that's awful, beyond sad. We all should feel terrible for the families of those slain officers.
-
We should probably drastically reduce the ridiculously firearms in this country.
how we going to carry this out sparky? you do realize most of the guns used for crime are obtained illegally, stolen, black market, etc. law abiding people respect our laws, criminals umm, don't. so you want to punish law abiding people while allowing criminals to continue to obtain guns to harm innocent people
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
your family is under threat of bodily harm...what are you going to do? call the de-funded police?
average time for police to respond to call-depending on where you are? 10-60 minutes. might as well call an ambulance or the coroner while you're at it
https://www.safesmartliving.com/average-police-response-time/
-
how we going to carry this out sparky? you do realize most of the guns used for crime are obtained illegally, stolen, black market, etc. law abiding people respect our laws, criminals umm, don't. so you want to punish law abiding people while allowing criminals to continue to obtain guns to harm innocent people
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
your family is under threat of bodily harm...what are you going to do? call the de-funded police?
average time for police to respond to call-depending on where you are? 10-60 minutes. might as well call an ambulance or the coroner while you're at it
https://www.safesmartliving.com/average-police-response-time/
Somebody should look up the stats on countries that do have strict gun control.
But yes. The answer is more guns. Hope you have a quick trigger because whoever draws first survives.
-
This is an example of how systemic racism need not be codified into law to exist. It simply wouldn't have happened had these innocent people been white.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/06/black-realtor-michigan-police-handcuffed/?utm_campaign=pdb&utm_content=Monday_08.09.21&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email
As a police officer turned Roy Thorne around to cuff his hands behind his back, the 45-year-old father saw the same happening to his 15-year-old son.
Feelings came quickly then to Thorne, who’s Black: rage that his son was being arrested. Humiliation that the teenager had to watch his dad get handcuffed while the whole neighborhood looked on. Confusion about how viewing a house with his real estate agent on a Sunday afternoon could lead to a half-dozen police officers pointing guns at them.
But more than anything: powerlessness. Thorne could do nothing other than obey in a desperate attempt not to die.
“I just felt defeated,” he told The Washington Post. “That’s something you never want your kid to see.”
Thorne and his son were touring a home Sunday with real estate agent Eric Brown, who’s also Black, in Wyoming, Mich., when police suddenly surrounded the house with guns drawn. The officers were responding to a neighbor’s 911 call about a break-in. They ordered the three out of the house, handcuffed them and put them in separate vehicles.
Except it wasn’t a break-in. Brown, 46, who has been working in the Grand Rapids area market for 20 years, arrived at the house on Sharon Avenue SW around 2 p.m. Thorne brought his 15-year-old son, Samuel.
Thorne and Brown said they were racially profiled. If they were White, they said, neighbors wouldn’t have called the police. And if they did, some half-dozen officers would not have surrounded the place with guns drawn, the men added.
-
Chicago police officer killed in the line of duty last night. Another in critical condition. 3 suspects in custody. Criminals have never felt so empowered during encounters with police.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/07/us/chicago-police-officers-shot/index.html
It's particularly egregious when elected officials dismiss attacks on law enforcement after years of voicing their support.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/january-6-republicans-trump/2021/07/27/79a29e38-eef4-11eb-bf80-e3877d9c5f06_story.html
-
how we going to carry this out sparky? you do realize most of the guns used for crime are obtained illegally, stolen, black market, etc. law abiding people respect our laws, criminals umm, don't. so you want to punish law abiding people while allowing criminals to continue to obtain guns to harm innocent people
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
He's so close to getting the point, but can't quite drag himself over the finish line.
Studies focusing on Chicago have found that most guns used in crimes there were purchased legally in states with loose restrictions - most often Indiana, but also Mississippi, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Texas - and then brought back to Chicago.
This could be largely addressed with laws in these states requiring a license to buy a gun there and a firearm registry. But the gun lobbies and businesses won't allow that. They'd rather get rich off the bloodshed in Chicago.
your family is under threat of bodily harm...what are you going to do? call the de-funded police?
average time for police to respond to call-depending on where you are? 10-60 minutes. might as well call an ambulance or the coroner while you're at it
https://www.safesmartliving.com/average-police-response-time/
Your periodic reminder that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to harm member of the household than to protect a member of the household.
-
He's so close to getting the point, but can't quite drag himself over the finish line.
Studies focusing on Chicago have found that most guns used in crimes there were purchased legally in states with loose restrictions - most often Indiana, but also Mississippi, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Texas - and then brought back to Chicago.
This could be largely addressed with laws in these states requiring a license to buy a gun there and a firearm registry. But the gun lobbies and businesses won't allow that. They'd rather get rich off the bloodshed in Chicago.
Your periodic reminder that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to harm member of the household than to protect a member of the household.
Oh there you go again, using facts and stuff about how ridiculously easy it is to get legal guns into the hands of criminals.
As for your second point ...
In 2020, there were at least 369 unintended shootings by children in the United States. These shootings caused 142 deaths and 242 injuries.
https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/at-home/Pages/Handguns-in-the-Home.aspx
Those are just the known cases, and they don't count suicides.
Dozens of those were by toddlers.
You know what they say: The only way to stop a bad fart-sound-making 5-year-old is a good toddler with a gun!
-
how we going to carry this out sparky? you do realize most of the guns used for crime are obtained illegally, stolen, black market, etc. law abiding people respect our laws, criminals umm, don't. so you want to punish law abiding people while allowing criminals to continue to obtain guns to harm innocent people
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
your family is under threat of bodily harm...what are you going to do? call the de-funded police?
average time for police to respond to call-depending on where you are? 10-60 minutes. might as well call an ambulance or the coroner while you're at it
https://www.safesmartliving.com/average-police-response-time/
Yes I know, the "criminals will just break the law, why do we even have laws anyway?" argument.
With such ironclad, irrefutable logic as this it would be pointless for me to even attempt a counter-argument. You're too smart for me.
-
It's particularly egregious when elected officials dismiss attacks on law enforcement after years of voicing their support.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/january-6-republicans-trump/2021/07/27/79a29e38-eef4-11eb-bf80-e3877d9c5f06_story.html
You might need to take a short break. You posts are starting to sound as though they were written by me. :)
-
Are you guys still at this?
What a waste of time.
Why are right wing Republicans afraid of black men?
Because they watch FOX.
Because they live and work in a white world.
They don't know black men or the black culture.
Because they don't know how many names of people on the Vietnam memorial wall are afro-American. (14%)
Because they are fearful whimps.
Why waste time talking to them?
I just walk away, I turn on my heals and walk away from them.
I played golf with one of these been nowhere done nothing thugs.
He had to tell me that his son was a state trooper retireing early because he felt he had lost his "power", whatever that means.
I walked away, end of conversation that never really got started.
At the 19th hole he tried to make nice, nice.
I sad, nice weather and walked away.
The only solution is a change of generation.
Gun collections will be like ash trays, or heal taps, totally yesterday.
Don't waste your time trying to reason with fearful people.
Just say a prayer and walk away.
-
Are you guys still at this?
What a waste of time.
Why are right wing Republicans afraid of black men?
Because they watch FOX.
Because they live and work in a white world.
They don't know black men or the black culture.
Because they don't know how many names of people on the Vietnam memorial wall are afro-American. (14%)
Because they are fearful whimps.
Why waste time talking to them?
I just walk away, I turn on my heals and walk away from them.
I played golf with one of these been nowhere done nothing thugs.
He had to tell me that his son was a state trooper retireing early because he felt he had lost his "power", whatever that means.
I walked away, end of conversation that never really got started.
At the 19th hole he tried to make nice, nice.
I sad, nice weather and walked away.
The only solution is a change of generation.
Gun collections will be like ash trays, or heal taps, totally yesterday.
Don't waste your time trying to reason with fearful people.
Just say a prayer and walk away.
Interesting... So right wing conservatives make false stereotypes of black men because they lack an understanding of them. So you decide to make a post showing how you stereotype right wing conservatives because of your lack of understanding of them.
Nicely done! Teal/No teal? I can't tell if this is satirical or not. It's a masterpiece either way though, the question just becomes who's the butt of the joke?
-
Interesting... So right wing conservatives make false stereotypes of black men because they lack an understanding of them. So you decide to make a post showing how you stereotype right wing conservatives because of your lack of understanding of them.
Nicely done! Teal/No teal? I can't tell if this is satirical or not. It's a masterpiece either way though, the question just becomes who's the butt of the joke?
Vogue's been making a fool of himself for 90+ years.
-
He's so close to getting the point, but can't quite drag himself over the finish line.
Studies focusing on Chicago have found that most guns used in crimes there were purchased legally in states with loose restrictions - most often Indiana, but also Mississippi, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Texas - and then brought back to Chicago.
This could be largely addressed with laws in these states requiring a license to buy a gun there and a firearm registry. But the gun lobbies and businesses won't allow that. They'd rather get rich off the bloodshed in Chicago.
Your periodic reminder that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to harm member of the household than to protect a member of the household.
You are comparing accidental at home handgun incidents to shooting a police officer in the face? How bout the 7 people shot on video in Chicago this weekend. We're those accidental too? Guns obtained legally or in one of dem der red states?
-
You are comparing accidental at home handgun incidents to shooting a police officer in the face? How bout the 7 people shot on video in Chicago this weekend. We're those accidental too? Guns obtained legally or in one of dem der red states?
Only an idiot would read my post and think I was making that comparison.
-
You are comparing accidental at home handgun incidents to shooting a police officer in the face? How bout the 7 people shot on video in Chicago this weekend. We're those accidental too? Guns obtained legally or in one of dem der red states?
Legal or illegal, blue state or red state, accidental or intentional...reducing the insanely easy access to guns would be a good place to start.
-
Chicago police officer killed in the line of duty last night. Another in critical condition. 3 suspects in custody. Criminals have never felt so empowered during encounters with police.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/07/us/chicago-police-officers-shot/index.html
well at least BLM and Antifa groups were out protesting and rioting over this tragic and heinous action. Oh, wait...
-
You are comparing accidental at home handgun incidents to shooting a police officer in the face? How bout the 7 people shot on video in Chicago this weekend. We're those accidental too? Guns obtained legally or in one of dem der red states?
Well, if Chicago hadn't elected such a limp dick mayor, some of this chit would never happen, aina?
-
well at least BLM and Antifa groups were out protesting and rioting over this tragic and heinous action. Oh, wait...
Why would they? Everyone agrees that is awful and the officers deserve justice. There's no need for a protest
-
well at least BLM and Antifa groups were out protesting and rioting over this tragic and heinous action. Oh, wait...
As were Blue Lives Matter patriots.
Just kidding, they just went on the ihternet and posted non sequiturs. They don't actually care about cops.
-
well at least BLM and Antifa groups were out protesting and rioting over this tragic and heinous action. Oh, wait...
Aren't you a lawyer? Shouldn't you be able to recognize a logical argument vs emotional? I mean we get it you lump all of BLM and Antifa together because your wife went through a horrific situation. But have some pride in the arguments that you make for goodness sake and take a step back to be able to think "is what I'm saying logical"
-
Legal or illegal, blue state or red state, accidental or intentional...reducing the insanely easy access to guns would be a good place to start.
You do realize that 40 mill legal guns were bought in 2020 alone? And something like 40% were from 1st time owners? It seems to me that if people actually want to talk about solutions, convincing people right now not to get a firearm is pretty much a non-starter.
As I wrote many months ago, the vilification of cops and defunding the police movement would lead to increased violent crime and homicides in our major cities. I was called a "fearmonger" or something along those lines. We are also seeing more and more cops targeted and yet people think they shouldn't be armed at traffic stops. We have a President who stated they should "shoot people in the leg" during potential life and death encounters. Lol.
I'm interested in rational solutions. Actual laws that can be calibrated to stop criminals from getting guns and murdering innocent people. What I've mostly read here are talking points that have a 0.0% chance of solving this horrific situation.
What exactly are leaders in our major cities doing to quell in particular gang violence? Why are they back on the street so easily as the Mayor of Baltimore stated? How about we focus on the criminals in lieu of "getting rid of guns" which frankly isn't possible or an actual solution. And if you think it a solution why aren't you proposing a blanket gun ban?
-
As I wrote many months ago, the vilification of cops and defunding the police movement would lead to increased violent crime and homicides in our major cities. I was called a "fearmonger" or something along those lines. We are also seeing more and more cops targeted and yet people think they shouldn't be armed at traffic stops. We have a President who stated they should "shoot people in the leg".
Well we haven't really defunded anything, and I don't know if the "vilification of cops" has anything to do with any of this. It seems to me that gang violence has grown significantly this year, and the cops have gotten caught up in it as well. And let's not forget that the violent crime rate has been steadily decreasing since 1990, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and this year would still be a minor blip of an increase compared to the progress made over the last 30 years.
-
Well we haven't really defunded anything, and I don't know if the "vilification of cops" has anything to do with any of this. It seems to me that gang violence has grown significantly this year, and the cops have gotten caught up in it as well. And let's not forget that the violent crime rate has been steadily decreasing since 1990, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and this year would still be a minor blip of an increase compared to the progress made over the last 30 years.
Many cops are quitting or taking early retirement. And departments have been defunded in a bunch of places. Again, I think we all want solutions. Unfortunately, convincing people not to purchase guns isn't one of them.
-
Many teachers are taking early retirement. In my oft stated opinion, for many of the same reasons. It sucks being a scapegoat. Both groups get scapegoated by the left and the right. They used to be the pillars of society. Now both are having trouble filling available positions. I predict nursing will be next.
-
You do realize that 40 mill legal guns were bought in 2020 alone? And something like 40% were from 1st time owners? It seems to me that if people actually want to talk about solutions, convincing people right now not to get a firearm is pretty much a non-starter.
<snip>
What exactly are leaders in our major cities doing to quell in particular gang violence? Why are they back on the street so easily as the Mayor of Baltimore stated? How about we focus on the criminals in lieu of "getting rid of guns" which frankly isn't possible or an actual solution. And if you think it a solution why aren't you proposing a blanket gun ban?
Doing nothing has been the policy for quite some time now, with the results that you are seeing. Worse, the right wing has virulently opposed any and every sensible gun law proposed since the NRA has gained power.
A blanket gun ban would not work. However, there are dozens of commons sense solutions, many of them mentioned in the pages here. None of them completely eliminate the problem or reduce it 100%. All of them, especially taken in aggregate, can have significant impact in reducing gun violence.
Here is a question to ask yourself: how is it possible that being the world leader in gun violence has become a partisan issue? How is it possible that Americans, regardless of political persuasion, can look at the amount of unnecessary death and destruction and NOT say, "Yeah, we need to something about that"? Why do you think one political party has staked out a position that virtually NOTHING can or should be tried to mitigate the gun violence? Who benefits from that financially and politically?
-
Add: thinks the solution is MORE guns.
-
Only an idiot would read my post and think I was making that comparison.
Your words, Chuck.
Not surprising that yet again you are casting blame for the shooting of a police officer on everyone and everything but the perpetrators.
-
Doing nothing has been the policy for quite some time now, with the results that you are seeing. Worse, the right wing has virulently opposed any and every sensible gun law proposed since the NRA has gained power.
A blanket gun ban would not work. However, there are dozens of commons sense solutions, many of them mentioned in the pages here. None of them completely eliminate the problem or reduce it 100%. All of them, especially taken in aggregate, can have significant impact in reducing gun violence.
Here is a question to ask yourself: how is it possible that being the world leader in gun violence has become a partisan issue? How is it possible that Americans, regardless of political persuasion, can look at the amount of unnecessary death and destruction and NOT say, "Yeah, we need to something about that"? Why do you think one political party has staked out a position that virtually NOTHING can or should be tried to mitigate the gun violence? Who benefits from that financially and politically?
This isn't necessarily true, my understanding is the NRA actually used to be pro gun control measures essentially till the Raegan administration when they changed over to a "zero compromise" philosophy on gun control.
Here's the article:
https://timeline.com/nra-machine-guns-1986-265cb939c77c
-
Your words, Chuck.
Not surprising that yet again you are casting blame for the shooting of a police officer on everyone and everything but the perpetrators.
I think it was pretty obvious that was a statement of what happens with guns in the home while everything prior to that was his actual argument about the shooting.
-
I'm interested in rational solutions. Actual laws that can be calibrated to stop criminals from getting guns and murdering innocent people. What I've mostly read here are talking points that have a 0.0% chance of solving this horrific situation.
I've seen plenty of rational suggestions in this thread and elsewhere. Just a few posts ago there was a suggestion to require a state firearms license and have a firearms registry. Are these not rational suggestions?
And if you think it a solution why aren't you proposing a blanket gun ban?
Because it's against the constitution?
How about we focus on the criminals in lieu of "getting rid of guns" which frankly isn't possible or an actual solution.
Because crime will exist as long as there is economic disparity....and never in human history has there not been economic disparity. We also have plenty of focus on criminals in our country. Our incarceration rate is higher than any other country in the world. The only country close to us is Russia. Our incarceration rate is more than double the rate of the country with the third highest incarceration rate (Saudi Arabia). You can't get rid of crime. You can make it less deadly and violent.
Australia introduced sweeping gun control reform in the late 90s/early 2000s and while studies disagree on whether or not they were the cause, the positive trends since then are undisputed. Suicide rate is down, homicide rate is down, gun related death rate is down, and after 13 mass shootings in 15 years, Australia has had 1 mass shooting in the past 25 years (3 if you count 2 domestic incidents where a single man killed his entire family). So I wouldn't say "it's not possible or an actual solution."
That being said, the USA is not Australia. Our country's culture around guns is a lot more ingrained and a similar rapid approach would not work. The best solution I can think of is to make small, strategic changes that will get guns out of the hands of more "bad guys" while not infringing on the rights of "good guys" while being smart in our education system and helping to change our youth's fascination with guns so over generations, the culture changes.
-
The NRA for years was basically a membership organization of hunters and target shooters that focused on gun safety. (My wife took a gun safety class offered by the NRA when she was a kid in the 70s.) It really did change its focus in the 1970s and 80s to be more about the unfettered access to firearms, and eventually was completely co-opted by firearms manufacturers.
-
Your words, Chuck.
Not surprising that yet again you are casting blame for the shooting of a police officer on everyone and everything but the perpetrators.
I've said nothing about blame for the shooting of a police officer.
Also:
(https://eb8e7f6d53.nxcli.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/resized_y-u-no-meme-generator-y-u-so-stalker-y-u-no-get-a-life-7b9860-300x300.jpg)
-
This isn't necessarily true, my understanding is the NRA actually used to be pro gun control measures essentially till the Raegan administration when they changed over to a "zero compromise" philosophy on gun control.
Here's the article:
https://timeline.com/nra-machine-guns-1986-265cb939c77c
Yes, agreed, that was what I meant by "since they gained power".
Whipping up fear and zealotry is WAY more lucrative than being a sensible middle-of-the-road organization focused on gun safety. Just ask Wayne LaPierre's tailor and jet mechanics.
-
Doing nothing has been the policy for quite some time now, with the results that you are seeing. Worse, the right wing has virulently opposed any and every sensible gun law proposed since the NRA has gained power.
A blanket gun ban would not work. However, there are dozens of commons sense solutions, many of them mentioned in the pages here. None of them completely eliminate the problem or reduce it 100%. All of them, especially taken in aggregate, can have significant impact in reducing gun violence.
Here is a question to ask yourself: how is it possible that being the world leader in gun violence has become a partisan issue? How is it possible that Americans, regardless of political persuasion, can look at the amount of unnecessary death and destruction and NOT say, "Yeah, we need to something about that"? Why do you think one political party has staked out a position that virtually NOTHING can or should be tried to mitigate the gun violence? Who benefits from that financially and politically?
I agree that NOTHING isn't a solution nor should it be a partisan issue. But states that have more stringent gun laws have criminals that will find a way to get their guns either illegally or legally. These laws aren't working is my point. You can talk about gun lobbyists or the political party that generally is in charge of our major cities.
I've heard pissed off police chiefs all over the country. Criminals are getting out too easily and committing the same heinous acts. Mayors are not giving them the support they need in most places. We should all be absolutely incensed about what's going on, and these are 80% black citizens. And their lives do fking matter, why aren't we doing jack squat? Why aren't there protests over this despicable situation? Little kids gunned down every goddamn weekend!! WTF? Where's the coverage? This is not partisan and has to stop. It begins with taking out these gangs.
-
It begins with taking out these gangs.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/09/asia/taliban-spokesperson-us-warning-intl-hnk/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/09/asia/taliban-spokesperson-us-warning-intl-hnk/index.html)
-
I agree that NOTHING isn't a solution nor should it be a partisan issue. But states that have more stringent gun laws have criminals that will find a way to get their guns either illegally or legally. These laws aren't working is my point. You can talk about gun lobbyists or the political party that generally is in charge of our major cities.
What laws are in place but not working, exactly? And if there are some that are in place and not working, how about we write some new ones that do work?
Each time that the political party that is generally in charge of cities passes a law that attempts to deal with guns and gun violence, which party unfailingly opposes the measure and takes it to court?
Again, tell me who benefits financially and politically by making this a partisan wedge issue?
-
What laws are in place but not working, exactly? And if there are some that are in place and not working, how about we write some new ones that do work?
Each time that the political party that is generally in charge of cities passes a law that attempts to deal with guns and gun violence, which party unfailingly opposes the measure and takes it to court?
Again, tell me who benefits financially and politically by making this a partisan wedge issue?
Not sure how accurate this is, but here's a list:
https://stacker.com/stories/12022/gun-control-legislation-passed-and-failed-over-last-20-years (https://stacker.com/stories/12022/gun-control-legislation-passed-and-failed-over-last-20-years)
-
I agree that NOTHING isn't a solution nor should it be a partisan issue. But states that have more stringent gun laws have criminals that will find a way to get their guns either illegally or legally. These laws aren't working is my point. You can talk about gun lobbyists or the political party that generally is in charge of our major cities.
I've heard pissed off police chiefs all over the country. Criminals are getting out too easily and committing the same heinous acts. Mayors are not giving them the support they need in most places. We should all be absolutely incensed about what's going on, and these are 80% black citizens. And their lives do fking matter, why aren't we doing jack squat? Why aren't there protests over this despicable situation? Little kids gunned down every goddamn weekend!! WTF? Where's the coverage? This is not partisan and has to stop. It begins with taking out these gangs.
Bolded: So you agree, we should have federal laws limiting gun ownership and purchasing. And we should have a gun registry. Great.
Italicized: Take the emotion out of it. There are protests and coverage of the deaths. You're expectation that BLM or Antifa should show up to these shows a fundamental lack of understanding of their mission. BLM's mission is to expose the inequities that the state imposes on Black people. Antifa exists to counter fascist movements worldwide (It's right in the name Anti-fascist). So, now that you understand what their missions are, do you understand why they aren't doing what you think they should be doing?
-
What laws are in place but not working, exactly? And if there are some that are in place and not working, how about we write some new ones that do work?
Each time that the political party that is generally in charge of cities passes a law that attempts to deal with guns and gun violence, which party unfailingly opposes the measure and takes it to court?
Again, tell me who benefits financially and politically by making this a partisan wedge issue?
They've run gun tracing finding a lot of these guns were initially bought legally and due to too many gaps in sale regulation that they've been able to fall into criminal hands.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-chicago-police-paul-bauer-gun-20180228-story.html
I do not understand how anybody on the right can read this example and say that WI's laws aren't effecting the issue negatively. Especially from those that profess to be "pro cop"
As far as sensible solutions here's a couple:
I say if you own a gun you have to pay for liability insurance, it stands to reason that if guns don't kill people and people do then insurance companies will start doing major due diligence on gun owners after a few pay outs. And I don't just mean culpability for the person who fired the gun but if I'm an avid gun enthusiast in middle of nowhere WI, who sells my gun to a stand up guy at a convention, who gives it to his nephew who lends it to his sketchy friend to shoot a cop then I am still liable as the original owner. (This works for police too. If medical providers need private malpractice insurance then why doesn't another profession that holds people's lives in their hands?)
Next, remove the lawsuit protections for gun & ammo manufactures. There'd be plenty more investment in stopping mass shootings, rapid fire modifications, etc if gun manufactures had the same culpability that car manufactures do when there's safety issues.
-
Not sure how accurate this is, but here's a list:
https://stacker.com/stories/12022/gun-control-legislation-passed-and-failed-over-last-20-years (https://stacker.com/stories/12022/gun-control-legislation-passed-and-failed-over-last-20-years)
...I don't think that list is what you think it is. It's a list of 20 laws related to gun control that were proposed and either passed or failed (were never enacted).
There are 20 laws in this list, here's the breakdown:
3 passed laws that limit gun control (i.e. more guns)
15 failed laws that increase gun control (i.e. less guns)
2 pending laws that increase gun control (passed the house, not the senate)
It's literally a list of all the times that an attempt at gun control has been shot down
-
You want to reduce crime (gun-related or otherwise)?
Reduce poverty.
Take money from the top of society -> Give everyone UBI. Give everyone healthcare. Significantly improve public housing.
Within a decade, things would improve everywhere drastically.
Edit: Oh, and make access to abortions easier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
-
You want to reduce crime (gun-related or otherwise)?
Reduce poverty.
Take money from the top of society -> Give everyone UBI. Give everyone healthcare. Significantly improve public housing.
Within a decade, things would improve everywhere drastically.
Edit: Oh, and make access to abortions easier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
Throw in a vastly improved education system and you've got my vote for President
-
...I don't think that list is what you think it is. It's a list of 20 laws related to gun control that were proposed and either passed or failed (were never enacted).
There are 20 laws in this list, here's the breakdown:
3 passed laws that limit gun control (i.e. more guns)
15 failed laws that increase gun control (i.e. less guns)
2 pending laws that increase gun control (passed the house, not the senate)
It's literally a list of all the times that an attempt at gun control has been shot down
That's exacly what I thought it was, to answer TSmiths second paragraph
-
I've said nothing about blame for the shooting of a police officer.
Also:
(https://eb8e7f6d53.nxcli.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/resized_y-u-no-meme-generator-y-u-so-stalker-y-u-no-get-a-life-7b9860-300x300.jpg)
2 replies to your inane posts and I'm a stalker? Yet you'll argue about the color of sh!t with a cow for 3 pages?
I suppose this thread just magically happened to re-emerge the day after a cop was shot in face, yet your posts have nothing to do with that, but rather blame the guns. :o :o :o
-
That's exacly what I thought it was, to answer TSmiths second paragraph
My apologies for misunderstanding. I thought it was meant to address his first paragraph
-
I've heard pissed off police chiefs all over the country. Criminals are getting out too easily and committing the same heinous acts.
Yes, here's two examples why from this week:
1. A woman was arrested twice last year at riots in Portland and extremely progressive DA Mike Schmidt dropped charges both times. Last week the same suspect randomly attacked a citizen and stabbed her with a knife.
https://www.kptv.com/news/portland-police-old-town-hotel-guest-stabbed-in-random-attack/article_0f6f072a-efdc-11eb-a178-df707bdcb8b0.html
2. An absolutely brutal attack (warning graphic video) in broad daylight just a few days ago in Seattle where a man was robbed and beaten unconscious. There's so many of these types of videos and robberies recently (I'm sure Target adjusted their hours in San Francisco for no reason). The police were also partially defunded in Seattle.
https://mynorthwest.com/3075146/rantz-22-year-old-still-spitting-up-blood-after-brutal-seattle-attack/
-
Yes, here's two examples why from this week:
1. A woman was arrested twice last year at riots in Portland and extremely progressive DA Mike Schmidt dropped charges both times. Last week the same suspect randomly attacked a citizen and stabbed her with a knife.
https://www.kptv.com/news/portland-police-old-town-hotel-guest-stabbed-in-random-attack/article_0f6f072a-efdc-11eb-a178-df707bdcb8b0.html
Don't know if you're being intentionally misleading or not, but the assailant in this case was not arrested last year during riots. She was arrested twice in February, both on disorderly conduct-type allegations unrelated to any kind of riots. The first was dismissed when the victim refused to cooperate with prosecutors. The second was dismissed by a judge, over objection, for lack of evidence.
In neither case was it the result of a decision by a prosecutor, "extremely progressive" or otherwise.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/07/out-of-town-visitor-chased-stabbed-in-portlands-old-town-neighborhood.html
2. An absolutely brutal attack (warning graphic video) in broad daylight just a few days ago in Seattle where a man was robbed and beaten unconscious. There's so many of these types of videos and robberies recently (I'm sure Target adjusted their hours in San Francisco for no reason). The police were also partially defunded in Seattle.
https://mynorthwest.com/3075146/rantz-22-year-old-still-spitting-up-blood-after-brutal-seattle-attack/
Once again, you're misleading people.
The "defunding" of the Seattle police budget was the result of two things:
1) Moving several functions - parking enforcement, victim services and 911 dispatch - out of the police department and instead place the under civilian control.
2) Eliminating already vacant positions.
And, in fact, the budget approved by the city council included funding to hire 100 additional police officers. They're not eliminating cops. They're adding cops.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-adopts-2021-budget-after-months-of-political-turbulence-mayor-will-sign/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/us/seattle-police-budget-cut/index.html
-
Facts vs agenda
-
You do realize that 40 mill legal guns were bought in 2020 alone? And something like 40% were from 1st time owners?
How do you determine a first time owner? First time having to go through a background check? Most southern gun owners I know have never bought a gun in a store, and never have gone through a background check.
Some of them own dozens of guns. They just buy them from people on the secondary market which is super unregulated in these states. That is the problem. Anyone can get a gun, because a lot of people just sell them to random people because they need cash to make it to the next payday.
That is why many/most of the gun crimes are committed by people using guns that were "originally" purchased legally. They were then sold to people who committed crimes on the secondary market.
In many of these instances, those guns are now considered "illegal" guns, because the person was not allowed to possess a weapon. The rational solution, police the secondary market, and hold people responsible for selling guns on the secondary market to convicted felons. Problem, the NRA and conservatives refuse even this simplest of measure most of the time.
-
2 replies to your inane posts and I'm a stalker? Yet you'll argue about the color of sh!t with a cow for 3 pages?
I suppose this thread just magically happened to re-emerge the day after a cop was shot in face, yet your posts have nothing to do with that, but rather blame the guns. :o :o :o
i'm not feeling so fuzzy and warm about pak's little cartoon-tinge of racism in there? i dunno, i'll have to leave that to the "experts"
-
Don't know if you're being intentionally misleading or not, but the assailant in this case was not arrested last year during riots. She was arrested twice in February, both on disorderly conduct-type allegations unrelated to any kind of riots. The first was dismissed when the victim refused to cooperate with prosecutors. The second was dismissed by a judge, over objection, for lack of evidence.
In neither case was it the result of a decision by a prosecutor, "extremely progressive" or otherwise.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/07/out-of-town-visitor-chased-stabbed-in-portlands-old-town-neighborhood.html
Once again, you're misleading people.
The "defunding" of the Seattle police budget was the result of two things:
1) Moving several functions - parking enforcement, victim services and 911 dispatch - out of the police department and instead place the under civilian control.
2) Eliminating already vacant positions.
And, in fact, the budget approved by the city council included funding to hire 100 additional police officers. They're not eliminating cops. They're adding cops.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-adopts-2021-budget-after-months-of-political-turbulence-mayor-will-sign/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/us/seattle-police-budget-cut/index.html
Oops.
-
How do you determine a first time owner? First time having to go through a background check? Most southern gun owners I know have never bought a gun in a store, and never have gone through a background check.
Some of them own dozens of guns. They just buy them from people on the secondary market which is super unregulated in these states. That is the problem. Anyone can get a gun, because a lot of people just sell them to random people because they need cash to make it to the next payday.
That is why many/most of the gun crimes are committed by people using guns that were "originally" purchased legally. They were then sold to people who committed crimes on the secondary market.
In many of these instances, those guns are now considered "illegal" guns, because the person was not allowed to possess a weapon. The rational solution, police the secondary market, and hold people responsible for selling guns on the secondary market to convicted felons. Problem, the NRA and conservatives refuse even this simplest of measure most of the time.
How many "southern gun owners" do you actally know? ::) ::)
-
How do you determine a first time owner? First time having to go through a background check? Most southern gun owners I know have never bought a gun in a store, and never have gone through a background check.
Some of them own dozens of guns. They just buy them from people on the secondary market which is super unregulated in these states. That is the problem. Anyone can get a gun, because a lot of people just sell them to random people because they need cash to make it to the next payday.
That is why many/most of the gun crimes are committed by people using guns that were "originally" purchased legally. They were then sold to people who committed crimes on the secondary market.
In many of these instances, those guns are now considered "illegal" guns, because the person was not allowed to possess a weapon. The rational solution, police the secondary market, and hold people responsible for selling guns on the secondary market to convicted felons. Problem, the NRA and conservatives refuse even this simplest of measure most of the time.
Whatever the case may be gun sales were up 60% in 2020. You can speculate as to the reasons why. I would imagine the greatest number of gun deaths are by suicide. There's no getting around the basic fact that more guns bought means more deaths and the mental health component should be taken very seriously. It seems to me it's far too easy for mentally ill people to obtain these weapons.
If it was up to me we'd have a society with no guns and Bears, Buffaloes, or Lions would take out psychopaths who hunt or assheads that kill innocent people. When a person takes a selfie at Yellowstone with a Buffalo or Bear I root for them to get trampled or clawed to death but I digress. I fully admit it needs to be more difficult to obtain a gun but we have a gun culture and the importance of the 2nd Amendment. I'm just looking for rational solutions but haven't heard much to this point.
-
Whatever the case may be gun sales were up 60% in 2020. You can speculate as to the reasons why. I would imagine the greatest number of gun deaths are by suicide. There's no getting around the basic fact that more guns bought means more deaths and the mental health component should be taken very seriously. It seems to me it's far too easy for mentally ill people to obtain these weapons.
I agree. Why have attempts to pass stricter laws in this regard failed?
If it was up to me we'd have a society with no guns and Bears, Buffaloes, or Lions would take out psychopaths who hunt or assheads that kill innocent people. When a person takes a selfie at Yellowstone with a Buffalo or Bear I root for them to get trampled or clawed to death but I digress. I fully admit it needs to be more difficult to obtain a gun but we have a gun culture and the importance of the 2nd Amendment. I'm just looking for rational solutions but haven't heard much to this point.
There have been proposals offered in this thread. Are those not rational? How about the bill the House passed in March that requires background checks on all purchases and most transfers (eliminating the gun show and private sale loopholes), are those not rational? Eliminating high capacity magazines? Increasing the age to purchase from 18 to 21? Requiring annual registration fees (just like your car) and proof of ownership? Trigger locks? Longer waiting periods? Restrictions on assault-style weapons?
Are none of those rational?
And yet once more, who is opposing every single measure, and who is benefiting financially and politically from it?
-
I agree. Why have attempts to pass stricter laws in this regard failed?
There have been proposals offered in this thread. Are those not rational? How about the bill the House passed in March that requires background checks on all purchases and most transfers (eliminating the gun show and private sale loopholes), are those not rational? Eliminating high capacity magazines? Increasing the age to purchase from 18 to 21? Requiring annual registration fees (just like your car) and proof of ownership? Trigger locks? Longer waiting periods? Restrictions on assault-style weapons?
Are none of those rational?
And yet once more, who is opposing every single measure, and who is benefiting financially and politically from it?
Illinois and Maryland in particular have very strict gun laws and people are getting slaughtered. I have no problem with increased background checks. I think we need to deal with these gangs and the drug businesses. Little kids should not be living in fear, it's beyond awful.
-
Illinois and Maryland in particular have very strict gun laws and people are getting slaughtered. I have no problem with increased background checks. I think we need to deal with these gangs and the drug businesses. Little kids should not be living in fear, it's beyond awful.
Cool. So we agree, at the very least, that there should be additional laws that help keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and that expand background checks. We also appear to agree that we should try to keep guns out of the hands of gangs and drug dealers.
So which party is blocking such laws from being enacted?
-
Aren't you a lawyer? Shouldn't you be able to recognize a logical argument vs emotional? I mean we get it you lump all of BLM and Antifa together because your wife went through a horrific situation. But have some pride in the arguments that you make for goodness sake and take a step back to be able to think "is what I'm saying logical"
One protests and one riots. I separated those actions. Neither happened here. It’s like the tragic death of this individual wasn’t worth their energy.
And neither BLM nor Antifa had anything to do with my wife’s attack. Rather, one spent months ravaging my city with violence and destruction to which it hasn’t (and may never) recover, and the other sat back and subtly nodded while they did it.
-
https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/indiana-man-accused-of-buying-gun-used-in-fatal-shooting-of-chicago-police-officer/531-e1f31986-b354-41f1-b773-82c0acd4e169
Didn't someone earlier mention neighbor state purchases?
-
Major news sources and social media (Google, Twitter, etc) are aggressively suppressing information about the suspects but here is some information about the cop killers:
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-two-brothers-charged-in-fatal-shooting-of-chicago-cop-ella-french
-
Major news sources and social media (Google, Twitter, etc) are aggressively suppressing information about the suspects but here is some information about the cop killers:
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-two-brothers-charged-in-fatal-shooting-of-chicago-cop-ella-french
Your link cites CBS 2 in Chicago as its source.
The Chicago Tribune posted the story at 6:56 pm.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-chicago-police-officer-shooting-charges-20210809-re3hfhimmrehvavustzr2ofyd4-story.html
A Google search provided numerous links to stories about the arrest and suspects..
-
Major news sources and social media (Google, Twitter, etc) are aggressively suppressing information about the suspects but here is some information about the cop killers:
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-two-brothers-charged-in-fatal-shooting-of-chicago-cop-ella-french
Maybe you want to go back and apologize for your previous post full of false information before posting another one?
-
How many "southern gun owners" do you actally know? ::) ::)
Let's just go with a lot, bordering on a crap-ton.
-
i'm not feeling so fuzzy and warm about pak's little cartoon-tinge of racism in there? i dunno, i'll have to leave that to the "experts"
It's a long standing internet meme. That you see racism in it probably says a lot about your inability to understand what is and what isn't racism.
-
Ah noted propagandists and purveyors of selectively edited materials designed to foment right wing anger, The Post Millennial. Forgive me if I save myself the time and just make up some angry race-based lies to tell myself, and skip that click.
-
My apologies for misunderstanding. I thought it was meant to address his first paragraph
No worries. I am not always the most clear when posting.
As to his first paragraph about ineffective laws, jesmu posted the news article about charges for the Indiana POS.
Danzy, 29, of Hammond, is charged with conspiracy to violate federal firearm laws, including knowingly transferring and giving a firearm to an out-of-state resident, knowingly making a false written statement to acquire a firearm, and knowingly disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon. He made his first court appearance Monday.
Those all seem to be ineffective, as the horse was already out of the barn, so to speak. What can we do to tighten this up?
-
No worries. I am not always the most clear when posting.
As to his first paragraph about ineffective laws, jesmu posted the news article about charges for the Indiana POS.
Danzy, 29, of Hammond, is charged with conspiracy to violate federal firearm laws, including knowingly transferring and giving a firearm to an out-of-state resident, knowingly making a false written statement to acquire a firearm, and knowingly disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon. He made his first court appearance Monday.
Those all seem to be ineffective, as the horse was already out of the barn, so to speak. What can we do to tighten this up?
Increase gun control in the state of Indiana
-
Increase gun control in the state of Indiana
In what capacity? The article doesn't really mention it, but it seems him buying the gun wasn't the issue, it was him breaking federal laws by the straw purchase. Would a better background check have stopped this? A longer wait to make a purchase?
-
In what capacity? The article doesn't really mention it, but it seems him buying the gun wasn't the issue, it was him breaking federal laws by the straw purchase. Would a better background check have stopped this? A longer wait to make a purchase?
I would say institute any number of the previously mentioned sensible gun control legislation on a national/federal level.
-
In what capacity? The article doesn't really mention it, but it seems him buying the gun wasn't the issue, it was him breaking federal laws by the straw purchase. Would a better background check have stopped this? A longer wait to make a purchase?
Some of them may work. Some of them may not. But continuing to shrug our collective shoulders and say "what can you do?" isn't a solution.
-
In what capacity? The article doesn't really mention it, but it seems him buying the gun wasn't the issue, it was him breaking federal laws by the straw purchase. Would a better background check have stopped this? A longer wait to make a purchase?
National firearm registry, national background check on all purchases, national firearm licenses. All purchases/sales made must go through the registry. Anyone in violation of this rule incurs heavy penalties; regardless of whether the firearm was ever used in a crime.
We already do this with motor vehicles and no one bats an eye.
Of course, this won't stop all illicit firearm trafficking, but it would have some positive impact.
-
Don't know if you're being intentionally misleading or not, but the assailant in this case was not arrested last year during riots. She was arrested twice in February, both on disorderly conduct-type allegations unrelated to any kind of riots. The first was dismissed when the victim refused to cooperate with prosecutors. The second was dismissed by a judge, over objection, for lack of evidence.
In neither case was it the result of a decision by a prosecutor, "extremely progressive" or otherwise.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/07/out-of-town-visitor-chased-stabbed-in-portlands-old-town-neighborhood.html
Once again, you're misleading people.
The "defunding" of the Seattle police budget was the result of two things:
1) Moving several functions - parking enforcement, victim services and 911 dispatch - out of the police department and instead place the under civilian control.
2) Eliminating already vacant positions.
And, in fact, the budget approved by the city council included funding to hire 100 additional police officers. They're not eliminating cops. They're adding cops.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-adopts-2021-budget-after-months-of-political-turbulence-mayor-will-sign/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/us/seattle-police-budget-cut/index.html
You are also misleading here. They've lost (last count I read) 260 officers due to early retirements and officers quitting. They're only "adding" those 100 officers (which only about 25 are actually budgeted for) because they have such a huge staffing crisis now, caused by all those departures combined with a hiring freeze.
And lets be clear, by "adding" we should really say "replacing." Even then, the budget is slashed 20% and not just from moving those items mentioned above but also from cutting overtime, salaries, and other misc expenses. Now even those 25 positions budgeted to be replaced this year are in jeopardy because they cut finding another couple million at the last minute.
-
One protests and one riots. I separated those actions. Neither happened here. It’s like the tragic death of this individual wasn’t worth their energy.
And neither BLM nor Antifa had anything to do with my wife’s attack. Rather, one spent months ravaging my city with violence and destruction to which it hasn’t (and may never) recover, and the other sat back and subtly nodded while they did it.
Ok so then why make the comment? You clearly knew neither is focusing on police violence. It's a purposely obtuse illogical argument that is meant to stoke flames simply because you disagree with them and (understandably) the methods a subset of the group took last summer. It's akin to me saying "where are all the pro life protestors!" Whenever someone is shot, that's not what they're focusing on so why would one expect them to be there in the first place?
-
You are also misleading here. They've lost (last count I read) 260 officers due to early retirements and officers quitting. They're only "adding" those 100 officers (which only about 25 are actually budgeted for) because they have such a huge staffing crisis now, caused by all those departures combined with a hiring freeze.
And lets be clear, by "adding" we should really say "replacing." Even then, the budget is slashed 20% and not just from moving those items mentioned above but also from cutting overtime, salaries, and other misc expenses. Now even those 25 positions budgeted to be replaced this year are in jeopardy because they cut finding another couple million at the last minute.
No, I'm not.
There was no loss of police officers in Seattle due to any cuts or "defunding" by the city. That's a fact. The council approved the hiring of police officers and any further staff loss via retirement/attrition simply brought the department to pre-2019 levels.
The overtime cuts you cite are negligible, and the result of a reasonable expectation that the OT demands this year would be lower than in 2020.
It's all here, if you care to wade through it.
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/FinanceDepartment/21adoptedbudget/SPD.pdf
-
Interesting... So right wing conservatives make false stereotypes of black men because they lack an understanding of them. So you decide to make a post showing how you stereotype right wing conservatives because of your lack of understanding of them.
Nicely done! Teal/No teal? I can't tell if this is satirical or not. It's a masterpiece either way though, the question just becomes who's the butt of the joke?
Because I live with right-wing Republicans fearful of black men.
Because in whitelandia my neighbors fear house breakins.
Because there are many "we support the police" signs and the blue flags flying.
Because of many conversations with black and white men.
Now, if you want "fair and balanced".
I had a co-worker, a wounded former Marine who would not come to my house for a cookout because he was afraid.
I used the V.A. for treatment of my father at the end of his life. The V.A. dispatched a nurse in a government car with government plates. She was black. The local police followed her for ten miles and into my parents driveway. She was shaking.
My premise is that the white community has little understanding of what is going on. This is where systemic racism crosses with the gun debate.
People with guns in suburban communities are fearful. They have rationalizations, but at their core they are fearful. Guns in the boondocks for people living with bear and wolves is another matter.
So, my view is that it will take generational change and the debate about this law or that law is a waste of time.
Like the COVID debate will be solved by death and suffering the gun debate will be solved by time.
If that is sarcastic, satirical or something else is beyond me.
BTW, I'm a white conservative, it takes one to know one.
Also, we have the black losers in jail and the white loser trying to overthrow our government.
Now that's a subject worth consideration.
-
It's a long standing internet meme. That you see racism in it probably says a lot about your inability to understand what is and what isn't racism.
ohhhh, so a "long standing internet meme" is the standard...got it.
btw, i did not say that it was racist. i essentially said that i wasn't sure(i.e wasn't "warm and fuzzy") and that i would leave that up to guys like you i guess, you know, the "experts"
one more observation-you sure are a "know all, be all" ain't ya? from medical issues to taxicabs to racism. it's one thing to have an opinion. it is another thing also recognize others have opinions that may differ. to have a little humility seems beyond your "expertise" when ya know it all, you know nothing
-
ohhhh, so a "long standing internet meme" is the standard...got it.
btw, i did not say that it was racist. i essentially said that i wasn't sure(i.e wasn't "warm and fuzzy") and that i would leave that up to guys like you i guess, you know, the "experts"
one more observation-you sure are a "know all, be all" ain't ya? from medical issues to taxicabs to racism. it's one thing to have an opinion. it is another thing also recognize others have opinions that may differ. to have a little humility seems beyond your "expertise" when ya know it all, you know nothing
Yes, I know more than you, but that certainly doesn't make me a know it all. In fact ,that'd be a pretty low bar. Especially when it comes to internet culture. Also, I was extensively educated on how to source my information and how to back up my arguments with facts instead of being fed talking points from a blowhard grifter behind a TV screen.
I fully acknowledge that your opinion differs from mine, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it. I refuse to accept your absolute lack of objectivity on the subjects you pontificate about endlessly. Is it mentally exhausting to bitch slap all of your silly posts? Not really. It takes me seconds to do it. Now if you'd spend the same seconds doing a little research into your claims you'd probably stop getting blasted for your opinions on the daily around here.
-
No, I'm not.
There was no loss of police officers in Seattle due to any cuts or "defunding" by the city. That's a fact. The council approved the hiring of police officers and any further staff loss via retirement/attrition simply brought the department to pre-2019 levels.
The overtime cuts you cite are negligible, and the result of a reasonable expectation that the OT demands this year would be lower than in 2020.
It's all here, if you care to wade through it.
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/FinanceDepartment/21adoptedbudget/SPD.pdf
Yes, you are misleading. The council approved hiring 100 officers but only 25 are funded and even those are now in question because of an extra cut. They're currently at a little over 1200 actual deployable officers and no funding for those "approved" extra 100 to bring them to 1343 at most. This is all in the link you provided... or do you not read your own sources??
And bringing them to "pre-2019" levels is NOT a good thing. Seattle had a DoJ lawsuit because they were under staffed in their police force and they found that nearly 1500 officers was the required number. They were working for YEARS to try to get to their needed level until they basically reached it in 2019 and then implemented a hiring freeze. So they have less officers now than they did a decade ago but the city population has grown roughly 20% during that time.
And reduction of OT is negligible according to whom? Supporters of defunding the police? Seattle's response times to 911 calls is at an all time low. They haven't met their goal of 7 min for tier 1 calls for months now and 2 out of every 3 days they can't respond to lower priority calls at all.
But ok, we don't live there... so it's all good.
-
Because I live with right-wing Republicans fearful of black men.
Because in whitelandia my neighbors fear house breakins.
Because there are many "we support the police" signs and the blue flags flying.
Because of many conversations with black and white men.
Now, if you want "fair and balanced".
I had a co-worker, a wounded former Marine who would not come to my house for a cookout because he was afraid.
I used the V.A. for treatment of my father at the end of his life. The V.A. dispatched a nurse in a government car with government plates. She was black. The local police followed her for ten miles and into my parents driveway. She was shaking.
My premise is that the white community has little understanding of what is going on. This is where systemic racism crosses with the gun debate.
People with guns in suburban communities are fearful. They have rationalizations, but at their core they are fearful. Guns in the boondocks for people living with bear and wolves is another matter.
So, my view is that it will take generational change and the debate about this law or that law is a waste of time.
Like the COVID debate will be solved by death and suffering the gun debate will be solved by time.
If that is sarcastic, satirical or something else is beyond me.
BTW, I'm a white conservative, it takes one to know one.
Also, we have the black losers in jail and the white loser trying to overthrow our government.
Now that's a subject worth consideration.
So you let your own limited personal experiences dictate and rationalize your stereotyping of a large population of people?
Which is interesting... because now you're saying you know because you are one? So are you afraid of black men? Or is it because you don't carry the 'R' that you're ok?
I'm perplexed. This isn't an attack either, this is a legit question for perspective.
-
‘He thought it was a toy.’ Toddler fatally shoots dad in grandma’s North Carolina home
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article253388638.html?
A 2-year-old boy fatally shot his father with a gun he playfully picked up and fired at his grandmother’s home in Gastonia, multiple media outlets reported.
-
‘He thought it was a toy.’ Toddler fatally shoots dad in grandma’s North Carolina home
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article253388638.html?
A 2-year-old boy fatally shot his father with a gun he playfully picked up and fired at his grandmother’s home in Gastonia, multiple media outlets reported.
Thoughts and prayers
-
So you let your own limited personal experiences dictate and rationalize your stereotyping of a large population of people?
Which is interesting... because now you're saying you know because you are one? So are you afraid of black men? Or is it because you don't carry the 'R' that you're ok?
I'm perplexed. This isn't an attack either, this is a legit question for perspective.
I understand your perplexity.
First, I worked for 25 years in a federal government agency with many afro-Americans, around 50% white, 50% black.
Most of them were frustrated with the lawlessness in their black communities. I was suprised to learn the lengths they would go to to protect themselves. I thought my example of my co-worker and former Marine would be clear. I could write dozens of similar stories.
I don't want to bicker about the extent of my personal experiences.
On the subject of stereotyping, I'm all for it. The problem is inaccurate stereotyping. Also, I'm very familiar with statistics and small sample size analysis. Point being that my experiences are sufficient to draw accurate conclusions. I could tell dozens of stories but it would never be sufficient for some people. I am probably talking about counter-stereotyping.
Yes I am one. I'm a conservative, depending on how we define conservative. And yes I am afraid of SOME black men, as are some of my black friends also afraid. There are areas of the city and times of day where these guys would avoid going at all costs. They avoid gangs, drug dealing areas, and prostitution. However, that is not the black community. That is a small part of inner city living.
Don't know what an "R" is. Is that short for Republican? Or short for rifle? I carried a fifle and 45 in the Marines but don't find a need these days.
I was a Young Republican at Marquette, even worked for Goldwater, but I have changed, a generational thing. I find change very spiritual, not easy, but worthwhile.
A pleasure trying to explain somewhat a very complex problem.
-
‘He thought it was a toy.’ Toddler fatally shoots dad in grandma’s North Carolina home
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article253388638.html?
A 2-year-old boy fatally shot his father with a gun he playfully picked up and fired at his grandmother’s home in Gastonia, multiple media outlets reported.
Who was at fault? The gun or the moron who “secured” the gun (safety off) in a place where a 2 year old could get his hands on it? Sometimes stupidity is fatal.
-
Who was at fault? The gun or the moron who “secured” the gun (safety off) in a place where a 2 year old could get his hands on it? Sometimes stupidity is fatal.
Can it be both?
-
Who was at fault? The gun or the moron who “secured” the gun (safety off) in a place where a 2 year old could get his hands on it? Sometimes stupidity is fatal.
Try the toddler as an adult.
-
Can it be both?
How about the trifecta? The gun, the moron, and the system that allowed the moron to possess a gun are all to blame equally.
-
How about the trifecta? The gun, the moron, and the system that allowed the moron to possess a gun are all to blame equally.
LOL
For months I read ad infinitum ad nauseum on Scoop that moronic non vaxxers were alone in their culpability. Not only did people not feel sorry when then died, they kinda celebrated. They had it coming, concha know?
But when someone uses a gun legally purchased for a legitimate reason (protection) IRRESPONSIBLY and RECKLESSLY and has a bad outcome because of it - the legal gun and the laws that allowed its purchase are equally at fault.
I guess when a drunk drives a car head on into another car the booze, car and drunk share the responsibility equally.
-
If only a good toddler had shot the bad toddler, Glock Daddy would be alive today.
As always … send more guns!
-
If only a good toddler had shot the bad toddler, Glock Daddy would be alive today.
I’ve never owned a gun. Like you I’ve never lived in a dangerous enough environment to need one. Unlike you, I don’t want to take away that right from law abiding citizens who do. Even if some of them will be reckless, irresponsible and stupid in the way they exercise their legitimate right to protect themselves.
But keep preaching and/or making jokes. Way easier than actually doing something about the illegal guns in the hands of the criminals who terrorize our worst neighborhoods. What’s your solution for that epidemic? Thoughts and prayers?
-
LOL
For months I read ad infinitum ad nauseum on Scoop that moronic non vaxxers were alone in their culpability. Not only did people not feel sorry when then died, they kinda celebrated. They had it coming, concha know?
Not sure what anti vaxxers have to do with a toddler shooting his moronic father but my impression is that the POV on Scoop is that anti vaxxers are not alone in their culpability - the GOP, right wing media, decades of abuse/experimentation by the US Gov, social media platforms not cracking down on misinformation, etc. all share in the blame. The individuals were not alone, they had a ton of help, but ultimately the decision was there's.
Agree that some people did not feel sorry when anti vaxxers died, but that's even more of a non sequitur.
But when someone uses a gun legally purchased for a legitimate reason (protection) IRRESPONSIBLY and RECKLESSLY and has a bad outcome because of it - the legal gun and the laws that allowed its purchase are equally at fault.
In this story who is using the gun for a 'legitimate reason'? Are you arguing that the toddler is protecting themselves from being fed or that the gun owner is using it to protect himself while feeding the child?
I guess when a drunk drives a car head on into another car the booze, car and drunk share the responsibility equally.
The flaw here is that a car's primary function is not to harm people/things. It's primary function, and hold onto your seat because this is unfortunately going to shock you, is to SAFELY transport people and things from one location to another. A guns function is to inflict harm on things. If a moron decides to use their vehicle in an unsafe manner and the legal/social/judicial system continues to allow them to use it then the blame is on the moron and the system, not the thing that is designed to safely transport people.
-
I’ve never owned a gun. Like you I’ve never lived in a dangerous enough environment to need one. Unlike you, I don’t want to take away that right from law abiding citizens who do. Even if some of them will be reckless, irresponsible and stupid in the way they exercise their legitimate right to protect themselves.
Lenny ... has MU82, or anyone else here, actually suggested taking away gun ownership rights from law-abiding citizens? If not, does throwing out that false argument help or contribute to the discussion at all?
But keep preaching and/or making jokes. Way easier than actually doing something about the illegal guns in the hands of the criminals who terrorize our worst neighborhoods. What’s your solution for that epidemic? Thoughts and prayers?
Ironically, it seems to me that those on the gun control side here have suggested plenty of potential solutions that wouldn't infringe upon the basic right to gun ownership. It's the people who claim they want to do something about "illegal guns" who don't actually offer any ideas about how to do that.
What we can also say is that while having a gun "for protection" in the home may make a person feel safer, all the data says it puts everyone in the household at far greater risk of being a victim of gun violence.
Likewise, the answer isn't more guns in general. The data shows that states with higher rates of gun ownership, and less gun control, also see the most gun violence.
-
I’ve never owned a gun. Like you I’ve never lived in a dangerous enough environment to need one. Unlike you, I don’t want to take away that right from law abiding citizens who do. Even if some of them will be reckless, irresponsible and stupid in the way they exercise their legitimate right to protect themselves.
An argument that literally no one here has made.
But keep preaching and/or making jokes. Way easier than actually doing something about the illegal guns in the hands of the criminals who terrorize our worst neighborhoods. What’s your solution for that epidemic? Thoughts and prayers?
There are a dozen suggestions in the previous three pages of this thread alone.
As I asked Muggsy multiple times, and he declined to answer each time, what is the obstacle to getting some of these very reasonable measures signed into law?
-
Lenny:
As others have stated ... neither I nor anybody else has suggested taking gun rights from law-abiding citizens. My father worked at one of the world's largest gun manufacturers, and we always had sporting rifles in the house (locked safely away when not in supervised use).
And I have been one of many Scoopers to make numerous suggestions over the years. Not that those suggestions were anything original -- just about all of them are in line with what 60% or 75% or even 90%+ of Americans have said they want in poll after poll after poll.
But our politicians are so owned by the gun lobby, or so controlled by their perverse definition of the 2nd Amendment -- even if it means taking out campaign ads showing literal targets on the heads of their political rivals -- that nothing gets done.
So yes, when someone says something like, "Oh, those laws won't stop gun violence" -- as if laws against rape and drunk driving "stop" rape and drunk driving ... yes, I make jokes.
It's a defense mechanism, because I am frustrated about this issue. As are many others here, perhaps even you.
I do the one thing I can, within my power, to try to get meaningful change enacted on this issue: I usually vote for politicians who are in favor of the kind of common-sense gun laws that I and the vast majority of Americans say we want.
I hope you will join me and other law-abiding citizens in that effort!
-
Lenny:
As others have stated ... neither I nor anybody else has suggested taking gun rights from law-abiding citizens. My father worked at one of the world's largest gun manufacturers, and we always had sporting rifles in the house (locked safely away when not in supervised use).
And I have been one of many Scoopers to make numerous suggestions over the years. Not that those suggestions were anything original -- just about all of them are in line with what 60% or 75% or even 90%+ of Americans have said they want in poll after poll after poll.
But our politicians are so owned by the gun lobby, or so controlled by their perverse definition of the 2nd Amendment -- even if it means taking out campaign ads showing literal targets on the heads of their political rivals -- that nothing gets done.
So yes, when someone says something like, "Oh, those laws won't stop gun violence" -- as if laws against rape and drunk driving "stop" rape and drunk driving ... yes, I make jokes.
It's a defense mechanism, because I am frustrated about this issue. As are many others here, perhaps even you.
I do the one thing I can, within my power, to try to get meaningful change enacted on this issue: I usually vote for politicians who are in favor of the kind of common-sense gun laws that I and the vast majority of Americans say we want.
I hope you will join me and other law-abiding citizens in that effort!
Excellent post, Mike.
I will just take exception to the part where 65% or 70% or 90% want common sense gun measures. I'm not arguing about what the polls say. I just think people lie a lot. If that many people felt that way, Congress would not be filled with people who don't.
-
An argument that literally no one here has made.
There are a dozen suggestions in the previous three pages of this thread alone.
As I asked Muggsy multiple times, and he declined to answer each time, what is the obstacle to getting some of these very reasonable measures signed into law?
I don't think I said I had any problems with your suggestions.
-
I don't think I said I had any problems with your suggestions.
OK, that's fine, good even.
But the question I ask again is, who is stopping any and all of these from being enacted?
-
I understand your perplexity.
First, I worked for 25 years in a federal government agency with many afro-Americans, around 50% white, 50% black.
Most of them were frustrated with the lawlessness in their black communities. I was suprised to learn the lengths they would go to to protect themselves. I thought my example of my co-worker and former Marine would be clear. I could write dozens of similar stories.
I don't want to bicker about the extent of my personal experiences.
On the subject of stereotyping, I'm all for it. The problem is inaccurate stereotyping. Also, I'm very familiar with statistics and small sample size analysis. Point being that my experiences are sufficient to draw accurate conclusions. I could tell dozens of stories but it would never be sufficient for some people. I am probably talking about counter-stereotyping.
Yes I am one. I'm a conservative, depending on how we define conservative. And yes I am afraid of SOME black men, as are some of my black friends also afraid. There are areas of the city and times of day where these guys would avoid going at all costs. They avoid gangs, drug dealing areas, and prostitution. However, that is not the black community. That is a small part of inner city living.
Don't know what an "R" is. Is that short for Republican? Or short for rifle? I carried a fifle and 45 in the Marines but don't find a need these days.
I was a Young Republican at Marquette, even worked for Goldwater, but I have changed, a generational thing. I find change very spiritual, not easy, but worthwhile.
A pleasure trying to explain somewhat a very complex problem.
The 'R' was for republican, since your first mention was "white republicans" vs conservative.
So you say you are afraid of "some" black men. But your first statement was that white republicans are afraid of black men. That pretty much says all white republicans are afraid of all black men. So you're afraid of all black men, is what you told me. Now you backtrack.
I understand we don't watch our words carefully in a back and forth on the internet, but statements grouping an entire population with a negative stereotype based solely on our own experiences is the epitome of what we should be avoiding in society. Identity politics, racism, and all the other negative outcomes are inevitable when we view people as monoliths based only on our own world experiences (or carelessly use words making it appear that we do that).
-
Lenny ... has MU82, or anyone else here, actually suggested taking away gun ownership rights from law-abiding citizens? If not, does throwing out that false argument help or contribute to the discussion at all?
Ironically, it seems to me that those on the gun control side here have suggested plenty of potential solutions that wouldn't infringe upon the basic right to gun ownership. It's the people who claim they want to do something about "illegal guns" who don't actually offer any ideas about how to do that.
What we can also say is that while having a gun "for protection" in the home may make a person feel safer, all the data says it puts everyone in the household at far greater risk of being a victim of gun violence.
Likewise, the answer isn't more guns in general. The data shows that states with higher rates of gun ownership, and less gun control, also see the most gun violence.
Pak,
Anyone? In this thread alone naginif has said that the gun laws that allowed these people to legally purchase a firearm share culpability equally with the moron and an inanimate object (the gun) in this tragedy. Nothing in the story suggests the buyer was a felon, didn’t pass a background check, etc. How would we have denied the right for this gun’s purchase short of making it illegal?
I agree with you re statistics on owning guns “for protection”. IMO that is due to two factors. First, many people (those in decent neighborhoods, for example) grossly overrate their risk and second, many buyers of firearms don’t learn how to use them properly or follow simple safety precautions. Can’t do much about #1, but I would be all for requiring gun purchasers to take a class or classes on simple gun safety. If that’s what naginif was driving at I apologize for misinterpreting - but it didn’t read that way to me.
Long and short? When I read headlines that tell me how many people guns, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, bad diets, sedentary lifestyles, automobiles, etc., “kill” each year it breaks my heart. The bad choices that human beings make to sabotage themselves is nothing short of stunning. So we keep trying to educate - it’s always the first/best choice. And we try to make laws that balance what’s “good for us” with freedoms that are essential for our way of life. Not an exact science by any means and good people can differ - but I tend to come down on the side of freedom. Better messy than reliance on benevolent despotism, whatever form (from monarchy to representative democracy) it takes.
-
Not sure I'd include bad diet in that one. There's some legit conspiracies and big money in there that's persuaded people in the way wrong direction. Compared to not wearing a seat belt or speeding, or smoking any tobacco, etc
-
Pak,
Anyone? In this thread alone naginif has said that the gun laws that allowed these people to legally purchase a firearm share culpability equally with the moron and an inanimate object (the gun) in this tragedy. Nothing in the story suggests the buyer was a felon, didn’t pass a background check, etc. How would we have denied the right for this gun’s purchase short of making it illegal?
I agree with you re statistics on owning guns “for protection”. IMO that is due to two factors. First, many people (those in decent neighborhoods, for example) grossly overrate their risk and second, many buyers of firearms don’t learn how to use them properly or follow simple safety precautions. Can’t do much about #1, but I would be all for requiring gun purchasers to take a class or classes on simple gun safety. If that’s what naginif was driving at I apologize for misinterpreting - but it didn’t read that way to me.
Long and short? When I read headlines that tell me how many people guns, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, bad diets, sedentary lifestyles, automobiles, etc., “kill” each year it breaks my heart. The bad choices that human beings make to sabotage themselves is nothing short of stunning. So we keep trying to educate - it’s always the first/best choice. And we try to make laws that balance what’s “good for us” with freedoms that are essential for our way of life. Not an exact science by any means and good people can differ - but I tend to come down on the side of freedom. Better messy than reliance on benevolent despotism, whatever form (from monarchy to representative democracy) it takes.
We're probably 90% in agreement. I do blame the existing legal gun ownership process which allows me (or any idiot) to buy a weapon, with no requirements for storage or safety, when that weapon kills someone. In this case would those requirements have prevented this moron from putting a loaded gun next to his toddler? Maybe/probably not but at least they would be an attempt and it would not infringe upon said morons rights to own a gun.
I think I've said this before in a different, and probably locked, thread I'm not for a gun ban, BUT as the years go by with no action towards rational legislation (national registry, insurance, training, specific storage requirements, etc.) my perspective of what is rational becomes more restrictive and if we have no movement on this issue in X years I can see me advocating for a ban.
-
I would be all for requiring gun purchasers to take a class or classes on simple gun safety.
I'll ask again: What is stopping common sense gun laws such as this and others mentioned here from being enacted?
-
, but I would be all for requiring gun purchasers to take a class or classes on simple gun safety.
Not just on gun safety, but also on how to shoot, needing to pass a test on accuracy. In all seriousness, I would make them run 100 yards (to get their heart rate up to a level similar to being in a dangerous situation), pick up their gun, and shoot a target. I would make them test every year. A gun registry, no sales out of state, any sale of your gun must have the required background check, and be listed on the national gun registry.
Me being lazy again, whatever happened to the bipartisan background check that made it through the House?
-
Me being lazy again, whatever happened to the bipartisan background check that made it through the House?
Yeah, that's one of those that has gotten something like 90% approval in public polls. Even a significant majority of NRA members gave it a thumbs-up IIRC.
But like everything else related to guns ... no go no how because too many politicians are cowards who are bought and sold by the gun lobby.
-
I'll ask again: What is stopping common sense gun laws such as this and others mentioned here from being enacted?
Same thing that happens to common sense abortion laws <ducks>?
-
Same thing that happens to common sense abortion laws <ducks>?
Will you please provide common sense abortion law examples?
-
Same thing that happens to common sense abortion laws <ducks>?
I think this is that term "what aboutism"
-
Yeah, that's one of those that has gotten something like 90% approval in public polls. Even a significant majority of NRA members gave it a thumbs-up IIRC.
But like everything else related to guns ... no go no how because too many politicians are cowards who are bought and sold by the gun lobby.
But couldn't this apply to our government on any other issue and lobby? I mean let's fill in the blank.
But like everything else related to _____ ... no go no how because too many politicians are cowards who are bought and sold by the ____ lobby.
I can't think the gun lobby is any more powerful than any other lobby.
And if it is, maybe it is because there are an awful lot of people behind it.
-
Will you please provide common sense abortion law examples?
Sure. There is no federal law restricting late term abortions. Currently in Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have no state (or district) laws restricting late term abortions.
-
Sure. There is no federal law restricting late term abortions. Currently in Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have no state (or district) laws restricting late term abortions.
Tony, if you enter late term abortion forced to carry dead into a Google search, you will find article after article of heartbreaking situations in which women were forced to carry stillborn fetuses until they delivered them -- even though the fetuses were dead for days or weeks (or longer), or were terminally damaged, or were scientifically known to be unviable once out of the womb -- because the states they lived in had iron-clad, no-exception rules against late-term abortions.
It's hard to imagine the emotional pain (and in many cases extreme physical pain) those women (and their significant others) went through.
From one article:
Nearly 99% of abortions occur before 21 weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but when they are needed past that point, it is in response to harrowing circumstances.
“Abortions that occur at this stage in pregnancy are often the result of tragic diagnoses and are exactly the scenarios wherein patients need their doctors, and not obstructive politicians,” says Dr Jennifer Conti, clinical assistant professor at Stanford University. “Asking a woman to carry a fatally flawed pregnancy to term is, at the very least, heartbreaking. I’ve often heard women say that they chose to end such pregnancies because of unselfish reasons: they couldn’t bear the thought of putting their fetus through even more pain or suffering.”
From another, a husband's account:
He still had a heart beat, which we were forced to listen to. Because of this, and his age, any attempts to induce labor would be considered a late-term abortion. Even though he had no chance of surviving, this was considered an abortion. These laws made my wife feel our child struggle inside her for days. We cried ourselves to sleep every night. We spent four days in and out of the hospital waiting for nature to take it’s course. These laws, in their effect, forced a woman to give birth to a stillborn baby.
As always, lots of nuance on these issues.
-
Sure. There is no federal law restricting late term abortions. Currently in Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have no state (or district) laws restricting late term abortions.
Thanks.
Do you believe there are corporate lobbying efforts fighting against late term abortion restrictions?
-
Thanks.
Do you believe there are corporate lobbying efforts fighting against late term abortion restrictions?
He's gonna say planned parenthood
-
Same thing that happens to common sense abortion laws <ducks>?
Come on, you can say it...might even do the soul good. Say it with me: who is blocking any and all sensible gun legislation?
-
Come on, you can say it...might even do the soul good. Say it with me: who is blocking any and all sensible gun legislation?
Let’s say it together, Smitty: “The NRA and right wing republicans fight sensible gun laws and Planned Parenthood and left wing democrats fight sensible abortion laws”
Now we’ll both sleep better tonight, a’ina?
-
Let’s say it together, Smitty: “The NRA and right wing republicans fight sensible gun laws and Planned Parenthood and left wing democrats fight sensible abortion laws”
Now we’ll both sleep better tonight, a’ina?
What's a common sense abortion law?
-
But couldn't this apply to our government on any other issue and lobby? I mean let's fill in the blank.
But like everything else related to _____ ... no go no how because too many politicians are cowards who are bought and sold by the ____ lobby.
I can't think the gun lobby is any more powerful than any other lobby.
And if it is, maybe it is because there are an awful lot of people behind it.
Has technology made lobbying obsolete? Has technology rendered obsolete the need for lobby money? If not yet, soon. The local papers are gone, next up t.v., direct mail, conventions and rallies. The lobby function will have to go directly to the voters. Not unlike the drug companies circumventing the doctors. The NRA is toast.
Repent the end is near, ha.
-
I am not an NRA member. So nothing to repent to.
-
What's a common sense abortion law?
Outlawing late term abortion except to save the life of the mother.
-
Let’s say it together, Smitty: “The NRA and right wing republicans fight sensible gun laws and Planned Parenthood and left wing democrats fight sensible abortion laws”
Now we’ll both sleep better tonight, a’ina?
Pathetic. Can’t you just answer the unnatural carnal knowledgeing question without the nonsense?
-
Outlawing late term abortion except to save the life of the mother.
So you still want to force women to carry terminal babies to term? That seriously doesn’t sound like you, Tony.
-
Has technology made lobbying obsolete? Has technology rendered obsolete the need for lobby money? If not yet, soon. The local papers are gone, next up t.v., direct mail, conventions and rallies. The lobby function will have to go directly to the voters. Not unlike the drug companies circumventing the doctors. The NRA is toast.
Repent the end is near, ha.
Lobbying doesnt just mean advertising. Lobbying at its core is buying influence. If you think that campaigns aren't going need funding, I don't know what to tell you.
And as for advertising, its all gone digital. You buy clicks and views, not papers and mailers. The game has evolved not fallen away. If you think conventions are gonna disappear, I'd love to make a wager on that.
-
So you still want to force women to carry terminal babies to term? That seriously doesn’t sound like you, Tony.
If a baby dies in utero and doesn't trigger labor, that's not an abortion. That's a miscarriage.
Half delivering the baby and jabbing a metal instrument into the base of the baby's skull is an abortion.
-
Outlawing late term abortion except to save the life of the mother.
Sounds like that's effectively the case now.
How common is it?
Very rare. The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that about 1.3 percent of abortions performed in the United States in 2015 occurred in or after the 21st week of pregnancy. Abortions after 24 weeks comprise less than one percent of all abortions. When they occur, it is usually because the fetus has been found to have a fatal condition that could not be detected earlier, such as a severe malformation of the brain, or because the mother’s life or health is at serious risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-trump.html
-
What's a common sense abortion law?
I'll start the ball rolling (even though it's giving Lenny the out) with caveat #1 that I'm not an licensed MD so some of the terminology may not be perfect and caveat #2 that as a man my POV means substantially less than a woman's and there is no way a man can fully understand the weight of this decision.
First break down the conversation into "medically needed/Dr recommended" and "on demand" abortions:
Medically needed/Dr recommended - at any point that a pregnancy either threatens a woman's life, her wellness, or the fetus is not survivable the decision to continue with the pregnancy or abort lies with the woman, her physician, and any person (spouse, family, friend, other, etc) the woman chooses to confer with.
On demand - if a woman is pregnant <20 weeks it should be her choice to end or carry to completion. 20 weeks is a) enough time to figure out if you are actually pregnant and b) enough time to grapple with this immensely difficult decision.
Second discuss the realities of when abortions happen..... <1% after 20 weeks, 92.2% ~<12 weeks, and 6.9% between 14-20 weeks. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm (https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm)
Third address the talking points:
- .8% of abortions are after 20 weeks, you can assume the vast majority are medically needed/Dr recommended. No rational person advocates for on demand late term abortions, it's a boogey man.
- there is a rational argument to be made between 13 and 20 weeks. If the proper education, accessibility to health care, and support for the woman were provided I assume most people with my "20 week" view would be fine with 13 weeks.
- an electronic spasm is no a heartbeat and a heartbeat does not = life. If either of these were true we'd have vastly different approaches to end of life
-
Let’s say it together, Smitty: “The NRA and right wing republicans fight sensible gun laws and Planned Parenthood and left wing democrats fight sensible abortion laws”
Now we’ll both sleep better tonight, a’ina?
You said common sense was late term abortion.
Can you provide evidence that left wing democrats in Congress have voted against late term abortion legislation?
Can you provide evidence that planned Parenthood has lobbied against late term abortion legislation?
-
You said common sense was late term abortion.
Can you provide evidence that left wing democrats in Congress have voted against late term abortion legislation?
Can you provide evidence that planned Parenthood has lobbied against late term abortion legislation?
Christ on a cheesecake, man. Can't you just google something you want to know?
-
Table 13 shows number of abortions 21 weeks or greater. There were 5315 reported in 2018. That's a pretty large number.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm#T12_down (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm#T12_down)
-
Table 13 shows number of abortions 21 weeks or greater. There were 5315 reported in 2018. That's a pretty large number.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm#T12_down (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm#T12_down)
It's a tiny number relative to total pregnancies. Heck, it's a tiny number relative to total abortions (1%).
And the question is, how many of those would be for reasons other than the health of the mother or the lack of viability of the fetus? (I'm assuming you guys don't believe it's "common sense" for force a woman to complete a pregnancy and give birth to an unviable fetus ... that seems unimaginably cruel).
Lastly, 43 states already have laws prohibiting abortions at some point in the pregnancy, so it seems that if Democrats really are fighting "common sense" abortion laws as we've been told, they're doing a pretty crappy job of it.
-
It's a tiny number relative to total pregnancies. Heck, it's a tiny number relative to total abortions (1%).
And the question is, how many of those would be for reasons other than the health of the mother or the lack of viability of the fetus? (I'm assuming you guys don't believe it's "common sense" for force a woman to complete a pregnancy and give birth to an unviable fetus ... that seems unimaginably cruel).
Lastly, 43 states already have laws prohibiting abortions at some point in the pregnancy, so it seems that if Democrats really are fighting "common sense" abortion laws as we've been told, they're doing a pretty crappy job of it.
I'm not arguing Dems vs Republicans. I am stating to casually say 5315 fetuses is not a big deal, or a tiny number, to me is a really crappy thing to say. Heck, even if 90% of that number are unviable, that's still 531 viable fetuses.
-
I'm not arguing Dems vs Republicans. I am stating to casually say 5315 fetuses is not a big deal, or a tiny number, to me is a really crappy thing to say. Heck, even if 90% of that number are unviable, that's still 531 viable fetuses.
1. I was referring to Lenny's claim that Democrats fight what he calls common sense abortion laws.
2. I feel you're being disingenuous, or at least misreading. I said nothing about whether 5,315 fetuses is or is not a big deal. I pointed out that, relative to the total abortions, it's a tiny figure. This is a fact, not a crappy thing to say.
3. I have a hard time reconciling the wailing over 5,315 fetuses, when it often comes from the same people who dismiss 14,000+ killings of living human beings a year via gun homicides as the price of freedom.
-
1. I was referring to Lenny's claim that Democrats fight what he calls common sense abortion laws.
2. I feel you're being disingenuous, or at least misreading. I said nothing about whether 5,315 fetuses is or is not a big deal. I pointed out that, relative to the total abortions, it's a tiny figure. This is a fact, not a crappy thing to say.
3. I have a hard time reconciling the wailing over 5,315 fetuses, when it often comes from the same people who dismiss 14,000+ killings of living human beings a year via gun homicides as the price of freedom.
Fetuses/unborn babies are not living human beings?
-
Fetuses/unborn babies are not living human beings?
Definition of fetus
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus
-
Definition of fetus
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus
I guess merrian-webster does not follow the science: it is a developing human being from the time of conception.
-
I guess merrian-webster does not follow the science: it is a developing human being from the time of conception.
Yes, a developing human being.
I get that you really just want to argue semantics here, but it doesn't really affect my point, does it?
-
Why does it not surprise me that much that a thread ostensibly about incidents of black men being killed by cops ( accidentally or otherwise) has morphed into a bunch of men opining on abortion.
-
Why does it not surprise me that much that a thread ostensibly about incidents of black men being killed by cops ( accidentally or otherwise) has morphed into a bunch of men opining on abortion.
In a never-before-seen turn of events, a Superbar thread has wandered off topic.
Given that most of us are neither Black or cops, we probably shouldn't have even started this discussion.
-
Why does it not surprise me that much that a thread ostensibly about incidents of black men being killed by cops ( accidentally or otherwise) has morphed into a bunch of men opining on abortion.
Because cowards who have no answers and don’t really want to have an honest discussion on the topic immediately have to try to change the subject with cowardly deflections
-
Because cowards who have no answers and don’t really want to have an honest discussion on the topic immediately have to try to change the subject with cowardly deflections
As if the topic hasn’t been discussed ad nauseam already, both sides. It was post #908 that first brought up abortion.
This is simply Scoop being Scoop on the 180 degree shift.
-
The most pathetic repeated comment ever made by a Pope.
Don't practice birth control.
Back in my day the argument at Marquette "theology" classes was not abortion, it was birthing at Catholic hospitals.
I wonder what the arguments will be like in 50 years.
The old fool Wisconsin cardinal without an innoculation and enjoying his resporator and Covid while saying the rosary is a good example of "church" teaching.
-
Fetuses/unborn babies are not living human beings?
nope.
-
Institutional racism is no longer a thing?
https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-technology-business-race-and-ethnicity-mortgages-2d3d40d5751f933a88c1e17063657586
An investigation by The Markup has found that lenders in 2019 were more likely to deny home loans to people of color than to white people with similar financial characteristics — even when we controlled for newly available financial factors that the mortgage industry has in the past said would explain racial disparities in lending.
Holding 17 different factors steady in a complex statistical analysis of more than 2 million conventional mortgage applications for home purchases reported to the government, we found that, in comparison to similar white applicants, lenders were:
● 80% more likely to reject Black applicants
● 70% more likely to deny Native American applicants
● 50% more likely to turn down Asian/Pacific Islander applicants
● 40% more likely to reject Latino applicants
These are national rates.
When we examined cities and towns individually, we found disparities in 90 metros spanning every region of the country. Lenders were 150% more likely to reject Black applicants in Chicago than similar white applicants there. Lenders were more than 200% more likely to reject Latino applicants than white applicants in Waco, Texas, and to reject Asian and Pacific Islander applicants than white ones in Port St. Lucie, Florida. And they were 110% more likely to deny Native American applicants in Minneapolis.
-
I brought household ownership earlier and was told laws (such as redlining) had been changed to prevent discrimination from happening. Of course, we knew that was nonsense. This article confirms that.
-
The report states people with similar financial characteristics. Not true at all. The report does not include individuals FICO score. Kind of an important thing needed.
-
The report states people with similar financial characteristics. Not true at all. The report does not include individuals FICO score. Kind of an important thing needed.
Except (from the full version on The Markup's website):
Government regulators do have access to credit scores. The CFPB analyzed 2019 HMDA data and found that accounting for credit scores does not eliminate lending disparities for people of color.
"Black applicants were 50% to 120% more likely to be denied than white applicants with the same credit score.
https://themarkup.org/denied/2021/08/25/the-secret-bias-hidden-in-mortgage-approval-algorithms
Is it your belief that Black and white applicants with similar incomes, similar dent-to-income ratios and similarities across 15 other financial factors have vastly different FICO scores?
Lastly, it's some kind of chutzpah for the lenders to criticize this report for not including FICO scores when it's those same lenders who prevented the authors from including FICO scores. It's like your spouse turning off your phone then complaining when you don't answer their texts.
-
Except (from the full version on The Markup's website):
Government regulators do have access to credit scores. The CFPB analyzed 2019 HMDA data and found that accounting for credit scores does not eliminate lending disparities for people of color.
"Black applicants were 50% to 120% more likely to be denied than white applicants with the same credit score.
https://themarkup.org/denied/2021/08/25/the-secret-bias-hidden-in-mortgage-approval-algorithms
Is it your belief that Black and white applicants with similar incomes, similar dent-to-income ratios and similarities across 15 other financial factors have vastly different FICO scores?
Lastly, it's some kind of chutzpah for the lenders to criticize this report for not including FICO scores when it's those same lenders who prevented the authors from including FICO scores. It's like your spouse turning off your phone then complaining when you don't answer their texts.
you realize where most of "big money's" money goes to right? the virtue signalers are the ones who are perpetuating this so called "institutional racism" you are up in arms about. they're holding all these woke seminars, paying big dollars to "woke" ya'll up, then go back to doing what they want to do anyway, make money... but no way they can be racists cuz some of their best friends are...never mind.
-
you realize where most of "big money's" money goes to right? the virtue signalers are the ones who are perpetuating this so called "institutional racism" you are up in arms about. they're holding all these woke seminars, paying big dollars to "woke" ya'll up, then go back to doing what they want to do anyway, make money... but no way they can be racists cuz some of their best friends are...never mind.
https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c
“…what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
-
https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c
“…what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
that seems to be your canned response to all of my posts which you don't like and the topic is out of your league. maybe you should stick to some of the easier stuff like your favorite ice cream or cloth diapers vs depends.
i stated a fact. if you don't like it, tell me otherwise or just stfu
-
that seems to be your canned response to all of my posts which you don't like and the topic is out of your league. maybe you should stick to some of the easier stuff like your favorite ice cream or cloth diapers vs depends.
i stated a fact. if you don't like it, tell me otherwise or just stfu
Unfortunately for you, most every topic is out of your league. And the sad part is that you don't realize it.
-
Unfortunately for you, most every topic is out of your league. And the sad part is that you don't realize it.
This is why the dental hygienists do all the work.
-
you realize where most of "big money's" money goes to right? the virtue signalers are the ones who are perpetuating this so called "institutional racism" you are up in arms about. they're holding all these woke seminars, paying big dollars to "woke" ya'll up, then go back to doing what they want to do anyway, make money... but no way they can be racists cuz some of their best friends are...never mind.
You never cease to amaze and that’s not a compliment
-
you realize where most of "big money's" money goes to right? the virtue signalers are the ones who are perpetuating this so called "institutional racism" you are up in arms about. they're holding all these woke seminars, paying big dollars to "woke" ya'll up, then go back to doing what they want to do anyway, make money... but no way they can be racists cuz some of their best friends are...never mind.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/5xtDarE6xDVfXhudrVK/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611c84f88e28ef57e657723357d180d617bb2a61985&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
-
you realize where most of "big money's" money goes to right? the virtue signalers are the ones who are perpetuating this so called "institutional racism" you are up in arms about. they're holding all these woke seminars, paying big dollars to "woke" ya'll up, then go back to doing what they want to do anyway, make money... but no way they can be racists cuz some of their best friends are...never mind.
What?
You might want to slow down your ingestion of horse de-wormers, demon seed and Lysol.
-
you realize where most of "big money's" money goes to right? the virtue signalers are the ones who are perpetuating this so called "institutional racism" you are up in arms about. they're holding all these woke seminars, paying big dollars to "woke" ya'll up, then go back to doing what they want to do anyway, make money... but no way they can be racists cuz some of their best friends are...never mind.
I can't be the only person somewhat interested in him peeling one or two more layers off of this. For starters:
- why does he think a post with 0 specifics is considered "facts" that someone else needs to refute?
- who, by name, is "big money"?
- what is a "woke seminar", how am I only finding out about them now, and how do I get an invite?
- tell me more about this business model where people (entities?) pay big dollars to "woke" folks up in order to go back to what they would have done anyway.....make money. Is it the ultimate 'you've got to spend money to make money' scenario, is this a version of offering seed faith offerings to televangelists for liberals?
-
We need to create a “rocket meter” to quantify how stupid and incomprehensible a post is on Scoop.
For example, “4nevers post was a 9.5 on the rocket meter”.
-
I can't be the only person somewhat interested in him peeling one or two more layers off of this. For starters:
- why does he think a post with 0 specifics is considered "facts" that someone else needs to refute?
- who, by name, is "big money"?
- what is a "woke seminar", how am I only finding out about them now, and how do I get an invite?
- tell me more about this business model where people (entities?) pay big dollars to "woke" folks up in order to go back to what they would have done anyway.....make money. Is it the ultimate 'you've got to spend money to make money' scenario, is this a version of offering seed faith offerings to televangelists for liberals?
my employer dropped $20K on Henry Rogers, I mean Dr. Ibrham Kendi to do a Zoom talk and bought 500 of his books for distribution to hear him say everyone is racist and everything we do is motivated by racism in some way, and we can only remedy that through "present and future discrimination to remedy past discrimination." Oh, and he can't even define racism when he talks about racism.
-
my employer dropped $20K on Henry Rogers, I mean Dr. Ibrham Kendi to do a Zoom talk and bought 500 of his books for distribution to hear him say everyone is racist and everything we do is motivated by racism in some way, and we can only remedy that through "present and future discrimination to remedy past discrimination." Oh, and he can't even define racism when he talks about racism.
Not knowing any more context (industry, corporate culture/history, public/private, actual content covered etc.) that seems like a colossal waste of $'s for a speaking engagement.
did you consider this a "woke seminar" vs. speaking engagement and do you think your employer did it for the nefarious purpose "to "woke" ya'll up, then go back to doing what they want to do anyway, make money"?
-
my employer dropped $20K on Henry Rogers, I mean Dr. Ibrham Kendi to do a Zoom talk and bought 500 of his books for distribution to hear him say everyone is racist and everything we do is motivated by racism in some way, and we can only remedy that through "present and future discrimination to remedy past discrimination." Oh, and he can't even define racism when he talks about racism.
Having read Dr. Kendi's book, you're misrepresenting his message. However, I also don't like Dr. Kendi's work though for different reasons.
-
We need to create a “rocket meter” to quantify how stupid and incomprehensible a post is on Scoop.
For example, “4nevers post was a 9.5 on the rocket meter”.
so tell me jockbreath, what kind of degree does one need to sell under britches?
-
so tell me jockbreath, what kind of degree does one need to sell under britches?
10 of 10
-
10 of 10
Heh.
-
10 of 10
This judge disagrees, scores it a mere 3. Failed at typical rambling, lacked the expected incoherence, and excluded any conspiracy theories. Altogether an atypical effort.
-
so tell me jockbreath, what kind of degree does one need to sell under britches?
I score this post 1.5 out of 4 fillings.
Not one of rocket's best efforts.
-
The hell is going on here?
-
I score this post 1.5 out of 4 fillings.
Not one of rocket's best efforts.
Not rambling enough. Not filled with alternative facts with no basis in reality with cryptic asides. 1 star
-
Hate crimes against Asian and Black people rise sharply in the U.S., FBI says
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/fbi-says-hate-crimes-against-asian-and-black-people-rise-in-the-us.html?utm_term=OZY&utm_campaign=pdb&utm_content=Tuesday_08.31.21&utm_source=Campaigner&utm_medium=email
++ Hate crimes targeting people of Asian descent in the U.S. rose by 70% last year compared with the number of such incidents in 2019, the FBI said.
++ That increase coincided with the outbreak in the U.S. of the Covid pandemic, which some racists have unjustly blamed on Asian Americans because the coronavirus originated in China.
++ The number of hate crimes targeting Black people jumped nearly 40% last year compared with 2019 levels.
-
Hate crimes against Asian and Black people rise sharply in the U.S., FBI says
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/fbi-says-hate-crimes-against-asian-and-black-people-rise-in-the-us.html?utm_term=OZY&utm_campaign=pdb&utm_content=Tuesday_08.31.21&utm_source=Campaigner&utm_medium=email
++ Hate crimes targeting people of Asian descent in the U.S. rose by 70% last year compared with the number of such incidents in 2019, the FBI said.
++ That increase coincided with the outbreak in the U.S. of the Covid pandemic, which some racists have unjustly blamed on Asian Americans because the coronavirus originated in China.
++ The number of hate crimes targeting Black people jumped nearly 40% last year compared with 2019 levels.
Economic anxiety
-
Economic anxiety
If we are conducting increased hate crimes against minorities because of 'economic anxiety' it only means that racism and bigotry is always lying under the surface and we just need an excuse to act on it. Economic anxiety may very well be a trigger but the issue is that we are a society steeped in racism and bigotry - let's not make any excuses for the actions.
-
If we are conducting increased hate crimes against minorities because of 'economic anxiety' it only means that racism and bigotry is always lying under the surface and we just need an excuse to act on it. Economic anxiety may very well be a trigger but the issue is that we are a society steeped in racism and bigotry - let's not make any excuses for the actions.
It’s an excuse used by many to dismiss racism in our country, it’s not something I believe in on any level. The Tea Party ran on the idea of economic anxiety. It was a lie
-
It’s an excuse used by many to dismiss racism in our country, it’s not something I believe in on any level. The Tea Party ran on the idea of economic anxiety. It was a lie
my 'tealdar' must be on the fritz this AM......100% agree
-
In before the lock? Or is this thread vaccinated and immune?
-
In before the lock? Or is this thread vaccinated and immune?
Immune from what? Why would this thread be locked?
-
Apparently nothing!
-
These criminals deserve no more leniency than the man they executed, a man whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time and, obviously, being the "wrong" race.
Three Officers and Two Paramedics Are Charged in Elijah McClain’s Death
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/elijah-mcclain-officers-charged-colorado.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20210901&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline®i_id=108420427&segment_id=67786&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa
DENVER — A Colorado grand jury issued criminal charges against three police officers and two paramedics in the 2019 death of Elijah McClain, a young Black man who had been walking home when he was stopped by the police, put into a chokehold and injected with a powerful anesthetic, the attorney general of Colorado announced on Wednesday.
Attorney General Phil Weiser, who had been named as a special prosecutor in the case, announced the 32-count indictment almost exactly two years to the day after Mr. McClain’s death.
The three police officers and two paramedics involved in Mr. McClain’s death in Aurora, Colo., just east of Denver, will each face one charge of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, Mr. Weiser said. The defendants also face a variety of assault charges.
The death of Mr. McClain, a 23-year-old Black man whom friends and family described as a gentle person who loved animals and taught himself to play the violin, touched off protests across Denver and a flurry of investigations, lawsuits and demands for policing reforms.
Mr. McClain had been walking home from a convenience store when he was stopped by three Aurora police officers responding to a 911 call about a suspicious person. The officers tackled Mr. McClain and put him in a type of chokehold that restricts blood to the brain. Paramedics arriving at the scene then injected Mr. McClain with ketamine, a rapid-acting anesthetic commonly used during surgical procedures in both animals and humans.
Mr. McClain was taken unconscious to the hospital and never recovered. He was taken off life support and died on Aug. 30, 2019.
Mr. McClain was unarmed and had not been suspected of committing any crime. As officers used force to subdue him, Mr. McClain repeatedly apologized to the officers and said he could not breathe: “I can’t breathe, please!” he said at one point.
-
Getting off easy. This was an execution. A modern day lynching.
-
Meanwhile, in Texas, parents are trying to ruin the life of a Black principal -- supposedly because he was pushing CRT, even though he wasn't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/01/texas-principal-critical-race-theory/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F348c8b7%2F612fa30e9d2fda9bb7aac972%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F38%2F74%2F612fa30e9d2fda9bb7aac972
For a little context about the racists and liars this poor guy has to deal with, here's a short passage down in the article:
The recent dispute over critical race theory was not Whitfield’s first clash with parents. In 2019, shortly after Whitfield was named the first Black principal of a middle school in Colleyville, a parent complained to the district about a photo Whitfield had posted on social media that showed him and his wife, who is White, in an embrace, celebrating their wedding anniversary.
“Is this the Dr. Whitfield we want as an example for our students?” the parent asked in an email that Whitfield recounted on Facebook. The district asked Whitfield to remove the photo to avoid further controversy, KXAS-TV reported.
Nice of the district to have his back. What a bunch of d-bags.
-
Beverly Hills Cops (no, not Axel, Billy and Taggart) ran a "Safe Streets" task force over the past year to cut down on crime.
They arrested 106 people. 105 of them were Black. The other was a dark-skinned Latino.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/01/beverly-hills-police-taskforce-lawsuit-racial-profiling
-
Beverly Hills Cops (no, not Axel, Billy and Taggart) ran a "Safe Streets" task force over the past year to cut down on crime.
They arrested 106 people. 105 of them were Black. The other was a dark-skinned Latino.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/01/beverly-hills-police-taskforce-lawsuit-racial-profiling
Finally. Proof that blacks and Latinos commit all the crimes.
-
Whoops.
The city of Philadelphia will pay $2 million to a Black woman who was pulled from a car, beaten by officers and had her toddler used for social media fodder by the police union, officials said.
Nursing aide Rickia Young was headed home in the early morning hours of Oct. 27, 2020, when she unknowingly drove into a large protest over the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr.
She tried to make a three-point turn to get away from the tense scene when officers smashed out her windows with their batons, according to her attorneys.
Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney called the treatment of Young "absolutely appalling" and "inexcusable."
Young was handcuffed and separated from her teenage nephew and 2-year-old son for several hours, and no one was ever charged or cited, according to the woman's lawyer. The hearing-impaired toddler lost his hearing aids during the tussle.
The Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police labor union, posted a Facebook picture two days later showing Young's toddler in the arms of a Philadelphia police officer just after the incident.
"This child was lost during the violent riots in Philadelphia, wandering around barefoot in an area that was experiencing complete lawlessness," the union said on Facebook. "The only thing this Philadelphia Police Officer cared about in that moment was protecting this child."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/philadelphia-pay-2m-black-woman-beaten-officers-separated-toddler-during-n1279134?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
-
Thankfully, the cops were fired, although I am sure the Police Union fought hard for their right to be corrupt.
-
Meanwhile, in Texas, parents are trying to ruin the life of a Black principal -- supposedly because he was pushing CRT, even though he wasn't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/01/texas-principal-critical-race-theory/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F348c8b7%2F612fa30e9d2fda9bb7aac972%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F38%2F74%2F612fa30e9d2fda9bb7aac972
For a little context about the racists and liars this poor guy has to deal with, here's a short passage down in the article:
The recent dispute over critical race theory was not Whitfield’s first clash with parents. In 2019, shortly after Whitfield was named the first Black principal of a middle school in Colleyville, a parent complained to the district about a photo Whitfield had posted on social media that showed him and his wife, who is White, in an embrace, celebrating their wedding anniversary.
“Is this the Dr. Whitfield we want as an example for our students?” the parent asked in an email that Whitfield recounted on Facebook. The district asked Whitfield to remove the photo to avoid further controversy, KXAS-TV reported.
Nice of the district to have his back. What a bunch of d-bags.
it's easy to go with "oh, it was because they were an interracial couple" and ignore then actual photograph in question which was a little risque for a principle to put on a public site, regardless of the race or ethnicity of the individuals in the photo. His wife didn't interpret the criticism to be a racial issue.
But hey, everything is about race these days so let's run with it. My wife was asked to take a picture down from IG by her employer and never said "it's because we're an interracial couple, isn't it?" But she doesn't feel the need to play the victim.
-
it's easy to go with "oh, it was because they were an interracial couple" and ignore then actual photograph in question which was a little risque for a principle to put on a public site, regardless of the race or ethnicity of the individuals in the photo. His wife didn't interpret the criticism to be a racial issue.
But hey, everything is about race these days so let's run with it. My wife was asked to take a picture down from IG by her employer and never said "it's because we're an interracial couple, isn't it?" But she doesn't feel the need to play the victim.
Cool.
-
it's easy to go with "oh, it was because they were an interracial couple" and ignore then actual photograph in question which was a little risque for a principle to put on a public site, regardless of the race or ethnicity of the individuals in the photo. His wife didn't interpret the criticism to be a racial issue.
But hey, everything is about race these days so let's run with it. My wife was asked to take a picture down from IG by her employer and never said "it's because we're an interracial couple, isn't it?" But she doesn't feel the need to play the victim.
The Colleyville School Board, where this man is a principal, is run by Tea Partiers. Ans as part of this they are objecting to him "teaching critical race theory", which he isn't.
So yes, it is all about race.
-
Peer-reviewed study shows that there have been significantly more deaths caused by police officers than had been officially reported by law-enforcement agencies. And, no surprise, Black people dying at the hands of police were the most undercounted.
The study:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01609-3/fulltext
Bloomberg article about it:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-01/new-study-quantifies-vast-undercount-of-police-deaths?srnd=equality&utm_term=OZY&utm_campaign=pdb&utm_content=Friday_10.01.21&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email
More men died of police violence than of testicular cancer, or lymphoma, or STDs in the U.S. in 2019. Depending on where you get your information, that could come as a surprise, or a grave confirmation.
A new study published in The Lancet found that a government-run database has undercounted the number of deaths at the hands of police in the U.S. by more than half.
The undercount was most pronounced among non-Hispanic Black victims, who had the highest mortality rate: Of an estimated 9,500 deaths, only around 3,800 were officially logged.
“When you undercount, you’re now scientifically making it nearly impossible to make good policy decisions,” said Edwin G. Lindo, the assistant dean for Social & Health Justice at the University of Washington School of Medicine, who reviewed the findings of the study. “When you are undercounting an individual who had a fatal encounter with police, you are now effectively erasing the historical fact of what was their death and how it occurred.”
-
The Colleyville School Board, where this man is a principal, is run by Tea Partiers. Ans as part of this they are objecting to him "teaching critical race theory", which he isn't.
So yes, it is all about race.
but wait, the "anti-racist" cabal says CRT is not taught outside of law school? You must be mistaken.
Anyone pushing the new, Kendi/DeAngelo strain of CRT in schools should be fired, regardless of their race. When my wife's co-workers middle school aged kids come home tell their mom they are ashamed of being white, or high school niece and nephew tell my sister they have been taught they are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin, and my sister taking in a 3 year old Black foster child is her trying to "colonize" the child, the people pushing that on children need to be kept as far from our schools are possible. Let them teach that in college.
-
but wait, the "anti-racist" cabal says CRT is not taught outside of law school? You must be mistaken.
Anyone pushing the new, Kendi/DeAngelo strain of CRT in schools should be fired, regardless of their race. When my wife's co-workers middle school aged kids come home tell their mom they are ashamed of being white, or high school niece and nephew tell my sister they have been taught they are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin, and my sister taking in a 3 year old Black foster child is her trying to "colonize" the child, the people pushing that on children need to be kept as far from our schools are possible. Let them teach that in college.
We get it, Billy-- black people bad.
-
We get it, Billy-- black people bad.
I'm sure everything he said totally happened
-
but wait, the "anti-racist" cabal says CRT is not taught outside of law school? You must be mistaken.
Anyone pushing the new, Kendi/DeAngelo strain of CRT in schools should be fired, regardless of their race. When my wife's co-workers middle school aged kids come home tell their mom they are ashamed of being white, or high school niece and nephew tell my sister they have been taught they are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin, and my sister taking in a 3 year old Black foster child is her trying to "colonize" the child, the people pushing that on children need to be kept as far from our schools are possible. Let them teach that in college.
You need to re-read TSmith's post. Your response makes no sense.
White people enslaved black people in this country. Then, some white folks fought against giving black folks civil rights after the abolishment of slavery. Those are bad things. Those are also just facts of history. Nothing to do with CRT.
-
but wait, the "anti-racist" cabal says CRT is not taught outside of law school? You must be mistaken.
Anyone pushing the new, Kendi/DeAngelo strain of CRT in schools should be fired, regardless of their race. When my wife's co-workers middle school aged kids come home tell their mom they are ashamed of being white, or high school niece and nephew tell my sister they have been taught they are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin, and my sister taking in a 3 year old Black foster child is her trying to "colonize" the child, the people pushing that on children need to be kept as far from our schools are possible. Let them teach that in college.
Methinks you are making things up.
-
but wait, the "anti-racist" cabal says CRT is not taught outside of law school? You must be mistaken.
Anyone pushing the new, Kendi/DeAngelo strain of CRT in schools should be fired, regardless of their race. When my wife's co-workers middle school aged kids come home tell their mom they are ashamed of being white, or high school niece and nephew tell my sister they have been taught they are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin, and my sister taking in a 3 year old Black foster child is her trying to "colonize" the child, the people pushing that on children need to be kept as far from our schools are possible. Let them teach that in college.
I've read Kendi's and DiAngelo's books. There's nothing in there about White people having to be ashamed of themselves, or White people being inherently bad, or about "colonizing" 3-year olds.
As a caveat, I don't like Kendi's book, though my critiques are likely different than yours.
-
I've read Kendi's and DiAngelo's books. There's nothing in there about White people having to be ashamed of themselves, or White people being inherently bad, or about "colonizing" 3-year olds.
As a caveat, I don't like Kendi's book, though my critiques are likely different than yours.
You're saying there is nothing written in White Fragility which intimates white people should be ashamed of themselves or are inherently bad?
-
You know, someday the white man will get a break in America.
So far, though, 400 years and everything has gone against us.
Here's hoping the rest of this decade finally brings the change we need to establish our own identity!
-
You're saying there is nothing written in White Fragility which intimates white people should be ashamed of themselves or are inherently bad?
Yes. Have you read it?
-
Yes. Have you read it?
No, but I attended a lecture she gave centered around her book. Her entire premise is more demeaning towards black people but what I got from her book talk is that racism is inexorably stuck in all white people. This thesis in itself certainly can make white people feel ashamed of their race. She also gave a bizarre example of white people smiling with glee when a black person is incarcerated and that it's no different than watching lynchings during slavery.
-
No, but I attended a lecture she gave centered around her book. Her entire premise is more demeaning towards black people but what I got from her book talk is that racism is inexorably stuck in all white people. This thesis in itself certainly can make white people feel ashamed of their race. She also gave a bizarre example of white people smiling with glee when a black person is incarcerated and that it's no different than watching lynchings during slavery.
Ah.
I empathize, my friend. I too have very strong feelings about a book I have not read. 50 Shades of Grey. A friend of mine's wife read it though and he told me some stuff at a bar, so I'm pretty qualified if I do say so myself. Would you like to hear them?
-
Ah.
I empathize, my friend. I too have very strong feelings about a book I have not read. 50 Shades of Grey. A friend of mine's wife read it though and he told me some stuff at a bar, so I'm pretty qualified if I do say so myself. Would you like to hear them?
So if you don't read someone's book cover to cover, but heard the author lecture, read excerpts, and numerous articles about the book, ,you're not entitled to have an opinion about the thesis? Do you need to read Mein Kamph or Mao's Red Book in its entirety to know what it's about or their points of view? Have you ever read a book critique to help you decide if you want to read the book?
-
So if you don't read someone's book cover to cover, but heard the author lecture, read excerpts, and numerous articles about the book, ,you're not entitled to have an opinion about the thesis? Do you need to read Mein Kamph or Mao's Red Book in its entirety to know what it's about or their points of view? Have you ever read a book critique to help you decide if you want to read the book?
Not read it cover to cover? Have an opinion, be open that it could be incorrect.
Heard the author lecture? Opinion on author is valid but not necessarily the book
Read excerpts? Excerpts taken without context so you can have an opinion but keep in mind these are likely excerpts to sway a person one way or another.
Read Numerous articles about the book? Absolutely not. You should be smart enough to know that in this world most of what is written on polarizing issues isn't a neutral written summary and given your posting history I'd highly doubt you were seeking out those few and far between neutral articles. an article on a politically charged book does and should not qualify one to have an informed opinion.
-
No, but I attended a lecture she gave centered around her book. Her entire premise is more demeaning towards black people but what I got from her book talk is that racism is inexorably stuck in all white people. This thesis in itself certainly can make white people feel ashamed of their race. She also gave a bizarre example of white people smiling with glee when a black person is incarcerated and that it's no different than watching lynchings during slavery.
I give you a lot of credit for at least attending a lecture by Dr. DiAngelo before having an opinion about it. That's more than most people I hear criticize her work and others work.
I think there's a difference between "can make White people feel ashamed of their race" as you said in this post and "White people should be ashamed of themselves" as you wrote in your first post. Yes, the reaction a lot of White people have to reading Dr. DiAngelo's work is feeling shame, that doesn't mean that the book is telling them to be ashamed. In fact, I think that feeling of shame would be an example of the titular "White Fragility" that Dr. DiAngelo is writing about. Her work doesn't call for White people to be ashamed but rather to acknowledge the benefits we receive from systemic racism and to work to try and dismantle it...though her book is less about how we do that and more about why so many White people don't.
Also, I'd like to point out here (not to you Muggsy but just in general), that Drs. DiAngelo and Kendi are just two scholars within the Critical Race Theory umbrella. They are the current flavors of the month but they didn't invent CRT and their work doesn't define it. It has been around since the 80s and not all of Dr. DiAngelo's and Dr. Kendi's ideas actually match with traditional CRT.
-
Ironically, Muggy's posts about White Fragility make a pretty good case for the existence of white Fragility. Everything's framed around the feelings of white people and how certain uncomfortable conversations or ideas are to be avoided because they might make white people feel bad.
I'd be interested to see a Venn diagram comparing the critics of CRT with the defenders of people like Charles Murray.
-
Ironically, Muggy's posts about White Fragility make a pretty good case for the existence of white Fragility. Everything's framed around the feelings of white people and how certain uncomfortable conversations or ideas are to be avoided because they might make white people feel bad.
I'd be interested to see a Venn diagram comparing the critics of CRT with the defenders of people like Charles Murray.
Are "White People:" monolithic? Are black people? Are Asians? Hispanics? Native Americans? Because little miss phd tells us all white people all racists and all black people are walking on egg shells because of white racism, ergo we're fragile?? She's very good at one thing: gaslighting america and race hustling.
-
I give you a lot of credit for at least attending a lecture by Dr. DiAngelo before having an opinion about it. That's more than most people I hear criticize her work and others work.
I think there's a difference between "can make White people feel ashamed of their race" as you said in this post and "White people should be ashamed of themselves" as you wrote in your first post. Yes, the reaction a lot of White people have to reading Dr. DiAngelo's work is feeling shame, that doesn't mean that the book is telling them to be ashamed. In fact, I think that feeling of shame would be an example of the titular "White Fragility" that Dr. DiAngelo is writing about. Her work doesn't call for White people to be ashamed but rather to acknowledge the benefits we receive from systemic racism and to work to try and dismantle it...though her book is less about how we do that and more about why so many White people don't.
Also, I'd like to point out here (not to you Muggsy but just in general), that Drs. DiAngelo and Kendi are just two scholars within the Critical Race Theory umbrella. They are the current flavors of the month but they didn't invent CRT and their work doesn't define it. It has been around since the 80s and not all of Dr. DiAngelo's and Dr. Kendi's ideas actually match with traditional CRT.
Does she not insist that all white people are racist, including herself, because of our "system"? And that we all need to acknowledge this in order to rid ourselves of this racism? Again, white people and other races of people are not monolithic. This is beyond insulting.
-
Does she not insist that all white people are racist, including herself, because of our "system"? And that we all need to acknowledge this in order to rid ourselves of this racism? Again, white people and other races of people are not monolithic. This is beyond insulting.
I hate to break it to you, but literally everyone on the planet, regardless of their melanin content in their skin, is racist to some degree. What is being asked is an acknowledgement of the past and how it has formed the extremely flawed society we live in. Teaching the version of 'history' that a lot of us grew up on glosses over horrific events, and often times creates outright lies as an excuse for the way Black people have been treated in this country since its inception.
I think anyone that is outraged by CRT is against the teaching of a more accurate history.
No one is asking for you to be personally ashamed on behalf of all White people. What we need to be ashamed of is the system that we have created to hold Black people back, and that not acknowledging it or working to change it is racist. Because why wouldn't you want a more perfect society?
-
Does she not insist that all white people are racist, including herself, because of our "system"? And that we all need to acknowledge this in order to rid ourselves of this racism? Again, white people and other races of people are not monolithic. This is beyond insulting.
She insists all White people are racist at times. Which is true. She also insists that all White people benefit from systemic racism. Which is also true. Though when I say "all" I believe Dr. DiAngelo limits her book to the context of the USA.
I think the dissonance may be coming from differing definitions of racist. Dr. DiAngelo doesn't use racist the noun, as in someone who in their heart of hearts hates people of other races. She uses racist the adjective as in any thought, action, or inaction that supports systemic racism. This adjective covers everything from cross burning to not saying something when a friend makes an off color joke about race. So using this definition, all White people are racist at times and I would argue all people period are racist at times. It doesn't mean that all White people hate people of other races
-
She insists all White people are racist at times. Which is true. She also insists that all White people benefit from systemic racism. Which is also true. Though when I say "all" I believe Dr. DiAngelo limits her book to the context of the USA.
I think the dissonance may be coming from differing definitions of racist. Dr. DiAngelo doesn't use racist the noun, as in someone who in their heart of hearts hates people of other races. She uses racist the adjective as in any thought, action, or inaction that supports systemic racism. This adjective covers everything from cross burning to not saying something when a friend makes an off color joke about race. So using this definition, all White people are racist at times and I would argue all people period are racist at times. It doesn't mean that all White people hate people of other races
Does she explain how when it comes to income the highest earners in the USA are Asian males? Does she offer any empirical evidence that our American "system" is racist, therefore we whites have to be racists because of our societal advantages?
I have an issue with her thesis and CRT in general because I think it divides people further, labels people into groups and connotes group thinking, and their solutions are often absurd. We tend to conflate equality and equity, they are two different things. There are numerous cultural reasons within all races that lead to all sorts of results when it comes to having a happy and fullfilling life.
Even if everyone agreed with the premise that because of the white construct that we live in we inherently are racist, then what? We all do what Kendi/ Di-Angelo suggests while they make 40K a lecture? And why exactly is she the arbiter of defining Racism or what it feels like to be black in American society? Is it conceivable that one can disagree with her thesis and not be a racist in your opinion? Or do we have to start in this "we're inexorably racist place" to move the needle at all towards becoming non-prejudicial?
-
Does she explain how when it comes to income the highest earners in the USA are Asian males?
LOL...right out of the fragile white male playbook.
-
I hate to break it to you, but literally everyone on the planet, regardless of their melanin content in their skin, is racist to some degree. What is being asked is an acknowledgement of the past and how it has formed the extremely flawed society we live in. Teaching the version of 'history' that a lot of us grew up on glosses over horrific events, and often times creates outright lies as an excuse for the way Black people have been treated in this country since its inception.
I think anyone that is outraged by CRT is against the teaching of a more accurate history.
No one is asking for you to be personally ashamed on behalf of all White people. What we need to be ashamed of is the system that we have created to hold Black people back, and that not acknowledging it or working to change it is racist. Because why wouldn't you want a more perfect society?
Why do you live here if you are "ashamed of the system"? GIve me some examples of better :systems" that don't make you ashamed. Are there any other factors in your mind besides the "system" that contribute to why individuals or groups succeeed or fail?
Perfect societies are plausible in theory, but not based in reality. If they were total equality would work and no one would do anything evil or prejudicial. We all know history is replete with countless examples of philosophically perfect society that have failed miserably. Of course we want to do better as a country/society, the problem is our flawed system can be replaced with a system far worse as we know too well. It's not particularly rational to think any race of people can be transformed and look at the world through a Utopian lens.
-
Does she explain how when it comes to income the highest earners in the USA are Asian males? Does she offer any empirical evidence that our American "system" is racist, therefore we whites have to be racists because of our societal advantages?
I have an issue with her thesis and CRT in general because I think it divides people further, labels people into groups and connotes group thinking, and their solutions are often absurd. We tend to conflate equality and equity, they are two different things. There are numerous cultural reasons within all races that lead to all sorts of results when it comes to having a happy and fullfilling life.
Even if everyone agreed with the premise that because of the white construct that we live in we inherently are racist, then what? We all do what Kendi/ Di-Angelo suggests while they make 40K a lecture? And why exactly is she the arbiter of defining Racism or what it feels like to be black in American society? Is it conceivable that one can disagree with her thesis and not be a racist in your opinion? Or do we have to start in this "we're inexorably racist place" to move the needle at all towards becoming non-prejudicial?
You seem very invested in this topic, which I applaud you for. With that said, read the book so at the very least you are more armed to defend your opinions. You might even find a nugget or two in it that opens your perspective a little. Not change your mind but make you think about it in another way.
Also, when you say “little miss phd” you completely undercut your statements. I enjoy hearing from people who have different opinions, I do not like echo chambers. However, in order to give any credence to what you say, I think it’s important to limit the seeming misogyny. I think you’re better than that.
-
You seem very invested in this topic, which I applaud you for. With that said, read the book so at the very least you are more armed to defend your opinions. You might even find a nugget or two in it that opens your perspective a little. Not change your mind but make you think about it in another way.
Also, when you say “little miss phd” you completely undercut your statements. I enjoy hearing from people who have different opinions, I do not like echo chambers. However, in order to give any credence to what you say, I think it’s important to limit the seeming misogyny. I think you’re better than that.
I don't make a distinction between men or women with PhD's lecturing everyone on how to be an anti-racist. Some would also point out that it's super interesting that a white female knows what it feels like to be black in American society. I also know several black people that think her book is demeaning and very condescending. There are also known black sociologists and humanities professors that think her work is a pile of excrement such as John McWorter. Again Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, etc are not monolithic. This is a big problem with her book if you accept we all aren't the same.
-
You seem very invested in this topic, which I applaud you for. With that said, read the book so at the very least you are more armed to defend your opinions. You might even find a nugget or two in it that opens your perspective a little. Not change your mind but make you think about it in another way.
Also, when you say “little miss phd” you completely undercut your statements. I enjoy hearing from people who have different opinions, I do not like echo chambers. However, in order to give any credence to what you say, I think it’s important to limit the seeming misogyny. I think you’re better than that.
Really? What makes you think “he is better than that.” There is no evidence that’s the case. There is no evidence he is willing to leant anything.
He fills his posts with dozens of questions, which when answered, are completely ignored so he can ask even more, many of which are laughably irrelevant.
-
I don't make a distinction between men or women with PhD's lecturing everyone on how to be an anti-racist. Some would also point out that it's super interesting that a white female knows what it feels like to be black in American society. I also know several black people that think her book is demeaning and very condescending. There are also known black sociologists and humanities professors that think her work is a pile of excrement such as John McWorter. Again Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, etc are not monolithic. This is a big problem with her book if you accept we all aren't the same.
I think you do, specifically with the words you choose, but that is entirely up to you to accept. I recommend the book “Leadership and Self-Deception” it changed my life.
You are absolutely correct that no one single opinion is shared by all. I have been called out before by acquaintances who are Black for thinking I “know” what it’s like and all solutions fit all Black people. I get it, it’s a tough conversation and can be a tough pill to swallow.
What can’t be ignored by naming some differing opinion or supporting that opinion with a collection of people is that the other opinion also exists. Dismissing the idea of systemic racism and white fragility because some people disagree is hypocritical. It does exist, period. To the degree that it exists is where the debate lies. No one person has the exact same thought, it is good to hear and understand from people who challenge you.
-
Really? What makes you think “he is better than that.” There is no evidence that’s the case. There is no evidence he is willing to leant anything.
He fills his posts with dozens of questions, which when answered, are completely ignored so he can ask even more, many of which are laughably irrelevant.
Cause he’s human, and I have a tremendously high view of humanity. I have a tremendously high level of hope. I think people are inherently good.
He’s afraid, he’s angry, he’s defensive. That comes from somewhere, a place we don’t know but one we have likely experienced ourselves. I don’t like the language he chooses, but I like hearing his opinions. I was like him in some ways, so I can appreciate the inner struggle he probably feels. Growth is difficult. I just told my 15-year old son something I recently read, “Everything feels difficult when you’re about to level up. Don’t quit.” Perhaps Muggs is leveling up, perhaps we can give him that chance to work through it.
-
Really? What makes you think “he is better than that.” There is no evidence that’s the case. There is no evidence he is willing to leant anything.
He fills his posts with dozens of questions, which when answered, are completely ignored so he can ask even more, many of which are laughably irrelevant.
"Learming" appears to be agreeing with her thesis or what you are parroting. We'll agree to disagree FBM.
-
Cause he’s human, and I have a tremendously high view of humanity. I have a tremendously high level of hope. I think people are inherently good.
He’s afraid, he’s angry, he’s defensive. That comes from somewhere, a place we don’t know but one we have likely experienced ourselves. I don’t like the language he chooses, but I like hearing his opinions. I was like him in some ways, so I can appreciate the inner struggle he probably feels. Growth is difficult. I just told my 15-year old son something I recently read, “Everything feels difficult when you’re about to level up. Don’t quit.” Perhaps Muggs is leveling up, perhaps we can give him that chance to work through it.
Ty for your suggestions.
-
"Learming" appears to be agreeing with her thesis or what you are parroting. We'll agree to disagree FBM.
I’m not parroting anything. Because you’ve already shown yourself to be ignorant and unwilling to learn on this topic.
God bless TAMU and 21 for having the patience, but they may as well be talking to a rock.
-
I’m not parroting anything. Because you’ve already shown yourself to be ignorant and unwilling to learn on this topic.
God bless TAMU and 21 for having the patience, but they may as well be talking to a rock.
So how do you respond to black academics who think DiAngelo and Kendi are race hustlers that further divide our society and are condescending and belittling to black people Are they ignorant? Is John McWorter stupid? Does he know less about these issues than DiAngelo? He called her book a pile of excrement how would you respond to him?
-
I hate to break it to you, but literally everyone on the planet, regardless of their melanin content in their skin, is racist to some degree. What is being asked is an acknowledgement of the past and how it has formed the extremely flawed society we live in. Teaching the version of 'history' that a lot of us grew up on glosses over horrific events, and often times creates outright lies as an excuse for the way Black people have been treated in this country since its inception.
I think anyone that is outraged by CRT is against the teaching of a more accurate history.
No one is asking for you to be personally ashamed on behalf of all White people. What we need to be ashamed of is the system that we have created to hold Black people back, and that not acknowledging it or working to change it is racist. Because why wouldn't you want a more perfect society?
Asian internment camps, trail of tears, slavery, the fight against civil rights, etc, etc.
If we don't talk about it/teach it, did it actually exist?
-
So how do you respond to black academics who think DiAngelo and Kendi are race hustlers that further divide our society and are condescending and belittling to black people Are they ignorant? Is John McWorter stupid? Does he know less about these issues than DiAngelo? He called her book a pile of excrement how would you respond to him?
Look! Four more questions! 🙄🙄🙄
-
Asian internment camps, trail of tears, slavery, the fight against civil rights, etc, etc.
If we don't talk about it/teach it, did it actually exist?
Are you saying this was not taught before CRT?
-
Look! Four more questions! 🙄🙄🙄
I ask questions because you have no answer as to how the Kemdi/DiAngelo thesis or CRT helps Anerican society with regard to racism or race relations. It causes division as well as people who conform blindly without asking any questions.
-
Are you saying this was not taught before CRT?
Another question.
-
I ask questions because you have no answer as to how the Kemdi/DiAngelo thesis or CRT helps Anerican society with regard to racism or race relations. It causes division as well as people who conform blindly without asking any questions.
I don’t answer your questions because whenever anyone does, you just ask more of them…and dumber ones.
You are simply unwilling to learn. A symbol of the actual problem. Congrats!
-
I don’t answer your questions because whenever anyone does, you just ask more of them…and dumber ones.
You are simply unwilling to learn. A symbol of the actual problem. Congrats!
So your rebuttal is calling people ignorant that don't agree with you. That's a failed strategy FBM and beneath your character.
-
So how do you respond to black academics who think DiAngelo and Kendi are race hustlers that further divide our society and are condescending and belittling to black people Are they ignorant? Is John McWorter stupid? Does he know less about these issues than DiAngelo? He called her book a pile of excrement how would you respond to him?
Probably how John McWhorter has responded, that this discussion is more complicated than it is sometimes treated, that the words used in the debates are often defined differently between people, that we should work towards understanding. (I assume you are referring to the linguist, John McWhorter).
-
So your rebuttal is calling people ignorant that don't agree with you. That's a failed strategy FBM and beneath your character.
Not really. Mocking you is easy and fun because an actually intelligent discussion on your end isn’t possible.
-
I ask questions because you have no answer as to how the Kemdi/DiAngelo thesis or CRT helps Anerican society with regard to racism or race relations. It causes division as well as people who conform blindly without asking any questions.
It only causes division if we let it cause division. We can also treat it as another idea/thought/opinion/fact and work to find a place where there is more agreement then work from there.
-
Probably how John McWhorter has responded, that this discussion is more complicated than it is sometimes treated, that the words used in the debates are often defined differently between people, that we should work towards understanding. (I assume you are referring to the linguist, John McWhorter).
Yes. His expertise is Slavic languages . He is extremely critical of DiAngelo's book at pretty much every level. He doesn't find it complex from the interviews I watched.
-
So how do you respond to black academics who think DiAngelo and Kendi are race hustlers that further divide our society and are condescending and belittling to black people Are they ignorant? Is John McWorter stupid?
I'm not sure, but you should definitely refer to them as "little mister professor."
-
I'm not sure, but you should definitely refer to them as "little mister professor."
I'm sorry that triggered you Pakuni and automatically makes me misogynistic and racist.
-
I'm sorry that triggered you Pakuni and automatically makes me misogynistic and racist.
Yep. Still can’t see it. Exactly my point.
-
I'm sorry that triggered you Pakuni and automatically makes me misogynistic and racist.
Very triggered man says it's actually everyone else who's triggered.
-
Yes. His expertise is Slavic languages . He is extremely critical of DiAngelo's book at pretty much every level. He doesn't find it complex from the interviews I watched.
I did read an opinion piece he wrote about the book, and I found it well-spoken (yes, I specifically used that term in direct reference to his commentary about how the book refers to phrases white people cannot say). I have heard his opinion before about the book infantilizing Black people and also how it treats Black people as less capable, and that it is a book solely aimed at making white people feel better about themselves.
For me, it definitely made me question how I’ve thought and acted over the years, more specifically why I haven’t stood up and fought for economic justice. It did not make me feel guilty, I would do anything for my kids, but it did make me question why, if I have the means and some control, why I wouldn’t actively create opportunities for those less well off. Not just Black people to be sure, but I have personally spent the most time reading and learning about Black experiences. It made me more able to be vulnerable and just talk things out, because I have accepted that I am part of a system that I think keeps some people down more than others. It made me more open, which I thought was a benefit. I’ll never know what it’s like to be a Black man in America, but I know what it’s like to be a dad, a son, a husband. To me that’s enough to listen even when I’m called out for not giving a Black man enough credit or for being praised for trying to explain to my sons that not everyone lives the same life we do.
I’ve read a handful of pieces by McWhorter, and I always find them worthwhile. I don’t know much about him other than what I have read often gives “more to the argument” so to speak. It seems to me he knows there is systemic racism and that the arguments being had are complicated and often missing some valuable pieces. And, that it’s less about self-examination and more about self-action.
-
Why do you live here if you are "ashamed of the system"? GIve me some examples of better :systems" that don't make you ashamed. Are there any other factors in your mind besides the "system" that contribute to why individuals or groups succeeed or fail?
Perfect societies are plausible in theory, but not based in reality. If they were total equality would work and no one would do anything evil or prejudicial. We all know history is replete with countless examples of philosophically perfect society that have failed miserably. Of course we want to do better as a country/society, the problem is our flawed system can be replaced with a system far worse as we know too well. It's not particularly rational to think any race of people can be transformed and look at the world through a Utopian lens.
I live here because I expect change to come to the system, and I advocate for this change. What a stupid ass argument.
As for the portion I bolded, "things might get worse" is another terrible argument. Of course that is always a possibility, but right now in America things aren't okay. They might be for you, but there is a lot of suffering due to systemic racism.
You should be advocating for more equality for all, and not holding on to the notion that White supremacy doesn't exist in America. I'm not advocating for everything in America to be perfectly fair, so let's stop with the strawman arguments. I'm advocating that we stop screwing over Black people and acknowledge that we have built a society that is massively tilted in the favor of White males. And then we attempt to correct that inequity by changing our public policy.
You're trying to ignore a problem that clearly exists because it is uncomfortable for you to admit how easy White men in America have it, and the possibility that other groups seeing such success terrifies the hell out of you.
I have no idea why this scares so many White males.
-
I ask questions because you have no answer as to how the Kemdi/DiAngelo thesis or CRT helps Anerican society with regard to racism or race relations. It causes division as well as people who conform blindly without asking any questions.
How does it cause division? Who causes this division? Fragile White males need to accept that history is typically written by the oppressors and victors. Guess who that has been for the last couple hundred years.
You're advocating for dismissing actual history because it might hurt some people's feelings to find out the histories of Black people.
And you don't see how that is racist?
-
I'm sorry that triggered you Pakuni and automatically makes me misogynistic and racist.
I don’t think you saying “little miss phd” makes you a misogynist, for all I know you have a wife, daughter, co-workers whom you would never refer to as little miss anything. But, it is at the very least condescending and dismissive. Being a PhD is a commitment, whether you agree with her or not, and should be valued. I think it was a poor choice of words on your part, and trust me you’re not alone in that. I am squarely in your corner of having said some questionable things even unwittingly. And, that’s the point. We say things out of habit, being taught, actually believing, it’s important to understand where what we say comes from. Again, I don’t think you’re a misogynist, and I will add that not seeing the point of Pakuni’s post or taking any responsibility for your choice of words referring to the PhD can make someone wonder if it was more intentional than accidental.
-
Does she explain how when it comes to income the highest earners in the USA are Asian males? Does she offer any empirical evidence that our American "system" is racist, therefore we whites have to be racists because of our societal advantages?
I have an issue with her thesis and CRT in general because I think it divides people further, labels people into groups and connotes group thinking, and their solutions are often absurd. We tend to conflate equality and equity, they are two different things. There are numerous cultural reasons within all races that lead to all sorts of results when it comes to having a happy and fullfilling life.
Even if everyone agreed with the premise that because of the white construct that we live in we inherently are racist, then what? We all do what Kendi/ Di-Angelo suggests while they make 40K a lecture? And why exactly is she the arbiter of defining Racism or what it feels like to be black in American society? Is it conceivable that one can disagree with her thesis and not be a racist in your opinion? Or do we have to start in this "we're inexorably racist place" to move the needle at all towards becoming non-prejudicial?
Again, you are misusing the term racist here. Dr. DiAngelo doesn't say that all Whites are racists, the noun. She says all Whites are racist, the adjective at times. And the definition of racist that Dr. DiAngelo uses is a broad one that refers to everything between overt hate crimes and not addressing a friend who commits a small microaggression.
So let's take the word racism out of it. Call it whatever you want. Do you agree that all White people (or all people if that's more comfortable for you) sometimes say, think, or do things because of bias or discomfort around race?
-
Why do you live here if you are "ashamed of the system"? GIve me some examples of better :systems" that don't make you ashamed. Are there any other factors in your mind besides the "system" that contribute to why individuals or groups succeeed or fail?
Perfect societies are plausible in theory, but not based in reality. If they were total equality would work and no one would do anything evil or prejudicial. We all know history is replete with countless examples of philosophically perfect society that have failed miserably. Of course we want to do better as a country/society, the problem is our flawed system can be replaced with a system far worse as we know too well. It's not particularly rational to think any race of people can be transformed and look at the world through a Utopian lens.
First, I would say that just because you are ashamed of one piece of something doesn't mean you have to leave it or hate it. I am far from a perfect person, I have done many things in my past that I am ashamed of now. Most minor, a few major. I'm sure you have had a few moments in your life that you wish you could take back. That doesn't mean that I hate myself. I reflect on those past mistakes and I try to do better in the future.
No one is seriously advocating that we need to be build a perfect society. Just that we try to improve on the one we have. We should always be trying to do better, no?
-
I don't make a distinction between men or women with PhD's lecturing everyone on how to be an anti-racist. Some would also point out that it's super interesting that a white female knows what it feels like to be black in American society. I also know several black people that think her book is demeaning and very condescending. There are also known black sociologists and humanities professors that think her work is a pile of excrement such as John McWorter. Again Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, etc are not monolithic. This is a big problem with her book if you accept we all aren't the same.
Muggsy, I would ask yourself a couple of questions here.
1. If you don't make a distinction between men and women, why did you feel the need to bring up Dr. DiAngelo's sex?
2. I may be misreading, but it seems like you don't think much of people with PhDs. Why?
Also, Dr. DiAngelo never makes the claim to know what it is like to be Black in American society. My recollection is that she goes out of her way to emphasize that she does not in her book. What she does do is share the qualitative data that she has gathered from from Black people that she has worked with and interviewed.
-
So how do you respond to black academics who think DiAngelo and Kendi are race hustlers that further divide our society and are condescending and belittling to black people Are they ignorant? Is John McWorter stupid? Does he know less about these issues than DiAngelo? He called her book a pile of excrement how would you respond to him?
Have you read Dr. McWhorter's commentary on Dr. DiAngelo's book? You might find this interesting:
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/20/892943728/professor-criticizes-book-white-fragility-as-dehumanizing-to-black-people
Well, I understand where she's coming from. I don't think she's a hustler. I know that she's sincere.
It's interesting that you keep saying Black academics have called her a race hustler (I'm sure some have) and quote Dr. McWhorter, but he specifically said that he doesn't think Dr. DiAngelo is a race hustler. I'm also curious if you agree with a lot of Dr. McWhorter's other views on race which include being pro-police reform and housing reform.
I actually agree with a lot of Dr. McWhorter's views including some of his criticisms of Dr. DiAngelo's work.
-
Are you saying this was not taught before CRT?
In many schools, yes. In many more it is glossed over but not really explored.
This one caused a stir around my area a few years ago: https://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-texas-textbook-calls-slaves-immigrants-20151005-story.html.
-
Have you read Dr. McWhorter's commentary on Dr. DiAngelo's book? You might find this interesting:
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/20/892943728/professor-criticizes-book-white-fragility-as-dehumanizing-to-black-people
It's interesting that you keep saying Black academics have called her a race hustler (I'm sure some have) and quote Dr. McWhorter, but he specifically said that he doesn't think Dr. DiAngelo is a race hustler. I'm also curious if you agree with a lot of Dr. McWhorter's other views on race which include being pro-police reform and housing reform.
I actually agree with a lot of Dr. McWhorter's views including some of his criticisms of Dr. DiAngelo's work.
This is one of the pieces I have read by or with commentary by McWhorter, I found it worthwhile. I wondered if Muggs read this piece as it paints a more full view of what McWhorter thinks, which is exactly why I think Muggs refers to him.
-
I'm sorry that triggered you Pakuni and automatically makes me misogynistic and racist.
It doesn't make you misogynistic and racist (not sure how race would tie in with that specific comment). But that was a misogynistic comment. You may not have intended it that way but that is the way it has come off to multiple people here. I showed it to my wife who is a current PhD student and she agreed as well. Her exact words were "seems insecure about a woman being more educated than him." And I know you will say that's not true and not how you meant it. But that is the impact that your statement had. We all say and do things some times that have a different impact that what we intended, it doesn't make us bad people, just people. It's important to take ownership of the impact we have on others, even when it's not what we intended.
-
Are you saying this was not taught before CRT?
Your response here (another question, btw) makes me think you don't actually know what CRT is. We should - and frequently do - teach history like trail of tears and slavery to middle schoolers and older. CRT, to my knowledge, is not taught at lower levels.
-
It doesn't make you misogynistic and racist (not sure how race would tie in with that specific comment). But that was a misogynistic comment. You may not have intended it that way but that is the way it has come off to multiple people here. I showed it to my wife who is a current PhD student and she agreed as well. Her exact words were "seems insecure about a woman being more educated than him." And I know you will say that's not true and not how you meant it. But that is the impact that your statement had. We all say and do things some times that have a different impact that what we intended, it doesn't make us bad people, just people. It's important to take ownership of the impact we have on others, even when it's not what we intended.
I'm not jealous of DiAngelo's phd in multicultural education. But I apologize to your wife for my comment.
-
This is one of the pieces I have read by or with commentary by McWhorter, I found it worthwhile. I wondered if Muggs read this piece as it paints a more full view of what McWhorter thinks, which is exactly why I think Muggs refers to him.
Yes. I get that a lot of you want to racialize everything and get triggered easily. My heart goes out to you. What you should be triggered about is the point Mcwhorter makes about how "antiracist" academics dehumanize black people. And make race relations worse. And don't discuss the difference between equity and equality. And essentially cripple people on all sides of the discussion, especially black Americans. I'm reminded by that video of a white woman screaming at black cops that they are racists. I'm sure it made DiAngelo proud. McWhorter said "it's one of the worst books ever written" in a video with Glen Loury and that the value of it is to stop tables from wobbling. Ar least I'm not that harsh?
-
Yes. I get that a lot of you want to racialize everything and get triggered easily. My heart goes out to you. What you should be triggered about is the point Mcwhorter makes about how "antiracist" academics dehumanize black people. And make race relations worse. And don't discuss the difference between equity and equality. And essentially cripple people on all sides of the discussion, especially black Americans. I'm reminded by that video of a white woman screaming at black cops that they are racists. I'm sure it made DiAngelo proud. McWhorter said "it's one of the worst books ever written" in a video with Glen Loury and that the value of it is to stop tables from wobbling. Ar least I'm not that harsh?
You've mentioned this a few times. Are you pro equity or equality? Or are you just upset that nobody discusses it?
-
You've mentioned this a few times. Are you pro equity or equality? Or are you just upset that nobody discusses it?
I'm not upset at all, I think it's important to discuss these issues freely. I'm pro opportunity of equality. Everyone being equal and having the exact same things is not how societies function. I want to have a 70 inch vert, be 6'7 with Iverson's quickness, and shoot like Steph Curry. I would imagine all of us here do :). That's sadly not feasible.
Our lack of economic equality has far more to do with class and educational opportunities as well as one's parenting advantages or disadvantages. I don't subscribe to the view that every construct of the USA is rigged against those that aren't white in 2021. I think that's belittling and extremely offensive, especially to non-whites. Again, even if you accept this as a fact it doesn't change how we are going to solve these problems or help people that are struggling for whatever reason on their path to autonomy, being a solid citizen, and a life of happiness and fulfillment. I'm sick of the polarization of this country in general.
-
I'm not upset at all, I think it's important to discuss these issues freely. I'm pro opportunity of equality. Everyone being equal and having the exact same things is not how societies function. I want to have a 70 inch vert, be 6'7 with Iverson's quickness, and shoot like Steph Curry. I would imagine all of us here do :). That's sadly not feasible.
Our lack of economic equality has far more to do with class and educational opportunities as well as one's parenting advantages or disadvantages. I don't subscribe to the view that every construct of the USA is rigged against those that aren't white in 2021. I think that's belittling and extremely offensive, especially to non-whites. Again, even if you accept this as a fact it doesn't change how we are going to solve these problems or help people that are struggling for whatever reason on their path to autonomy, being a solid citizen, and a life of happiness and fulfillment. I'm sick of the polarization of this country in general.
I wish for an equal opportunity society as well. If I could Hurl like Joe Canning and box like Canelo and bagpipe like Gordon Duncan I'd have reached my peak. But pipe dreams aside would you say that the concept of "deprecate but equal back in the Jim Crow days was not actually equal? If yes I have a lovely plot of sand for you to stick your head into. If no then when (date or generation) would you say that black individuals should have made up all the ground that they lost since they started behind white folk in building generational wealth, educational opportunity, etc? And given that if both sides worked at equal paces since then they'd still be behind, then what is the issue with acknowledging that the lack of equity keeps at least a decent few of them back?
-
I wish for an equal opportunity society as well. If I could Hurl like Joe Canning and box like Canelo and bagpipe like Gordon Duncan I'd have reached my peak. But pipe dreams aside would you say that the concept of "deprecate but equal back in the Jim Crow days was not actually equal? If yes I have a lovely plot of sand for you to stick your head into. If no then when (date or generation) would you say that black individuals should have made up all the ground that they lost since they started behind white folk in building generational wealth, educational opportunity, etc? And given that if both sides worked at equal paces since then they'd still be behind, then what is the issue with acknowledging that the lack of equity keeps at least a decent few of them back?
No. I'm not comparing today to the days of Jim Crow nor do I believe things were rosy back then and we didn't have racist constructs in our society. I don't think the "lack of equity" narrative in 2021 or telling any group of people they are victims helps them succeed nor does it take into account a myriad of other reasons why they are struggling. And Robin DiAngelo telling whites they are racists and blacks that the system is rigged isn't helpful at all imo.
-
And Robin DiAngelo telling whites they are racists
You can keep repeating this Muggsy but it doesn't make it true.
Our lack of economic equality has far more to do with class and educational opportunities as well as one's parenting advantages or disadvantages. I don't subscribe to the view that every construct of the USA is rigged against those that aren't white in 2021. I think that's belittling and extremely offensive, especially to non-whites. Again, even if you accept this as a fact it doesn't change how we are going to solve these problems or help people that are struggling for whatever reason on their path to autonomy, being a solid citizen, and a life of happiness and fulfillment. I'm sick of the polarization of this country in general.
I don't think anyone is arguing that systemic racism is the only reason there is a lack of economic opportunity. But it is a reason. Can you agree with that much?
-
You can keep repeating this Muggsy but it doesn't make it true.
I don't think anyone is arguing that systemic racism is the only reason there is a lack of economic opportunity. But it is a reason. Can you agree with that much?
Yes to your last sentence. But it's cleanly the primary focus and not particularly useful when it comes to solutions right now. No one ostensibly is saying racism, whether you think it's entreched in our system or not, is the only reason . However, other factors are not being discussed in conjunction with racism.
-
No. I'm not comparing today to the days of Jim Crow nor do I believe things were rosy back then and we didn't have racist constructs in our society. I don't think the "lack of equity" narrative in 2021 or telling any group of people they are victims helps them succeed nor does it take into account a myriad of other reasons why they are struggling. And Robin DiAngelo telling whites they are racists and blacks that the system is rigged isn't helpful at all imo.
Except that the system IS rigged.
Hence the term SYSTEMic racism.
-
No. I'm not comparing today to the days of Jim Crow nor do I believe things were rosy back then and we didn't have racist constructs in our society. I don't think the "lack of equity" narrative in 2021 or telling any group of people they are victims helps them succeed nor does it take into account a myriad of other reasons why they are struggling. And Robin DiAngelo telling whites they are racists and blacks that the system is rigged isn't helpful at all imo.
So I don't think telling people they are victims is right so I 100% agree with you there. However, I do think honest history explaining that, in general, at the same point in time White people had a head start and thus generationally are more advantaged is a fair thing to teach.
You've said your moms from Ulster, in Derry public schools, if they ignored the voting oppression, farming taxes, similar redlining, and other issues against Catholics/Irish for years and simply looked at the issue as "Catholics aren't as successful as Protestants" I'd imagine you'd be upset. Am I correct?
If Yes: then why is it you cannot see a comparable situation to the circumstance of how starting at a disadvantaged point for various minorities should be taught?
If No: Then I give you props for holding true to an ideal that public education should be profoundly nationalistic but I sincerely disagree and believe that any country with egg on its face should acknowledge it. More advanced discussion of CRT can happen in higher learning but at the HS and middle school level there's nothing wrong with saying "yeah we're not perfect we've oppressed X, Y, Z, and certain groups were given a head start.
-
CRT simply isn't taught in middle school. Period. Anybody who thinks it is has no idea what CRT is.
Here in NC, there is a movement from the legislature to eliminate just about all discussion of race in high school and middle school They like it the way it is now, where slavery is discussed for a week (if that) during Black History Month as "it was bad, but the country has gotten past that and everything's great now. We even had a Black president!" Any time there is a discussion of today's racial issues, legislators shout: "Critical Race Theory!" It's a good way to divide and conquer, and to keep (and maybe even expand) the base.
-
So I don't think telling people they are victims is right so I 100% agree with you there. However, I do think honest history explaining that, in general, at the same point in time White people had a head start and thus generationally are more advantaged is a fair thing to teach.
You've said your moms from Ulster, in Derry public schools, if they ignored the voting oppression, farming taxes, similar redlining, and other issues against Catholics/Irish for years and simply looked at the issue as "Catholics aren't as successful as Protestants" I'd imagine you'd be upset. Am I correct?
If Yes: then why is it you cannot see a comparable situation to the circumstance of how starting at a disadvantaged point for various minorities should be taught?
If No: Then I give you props for holding true to an ideal that public education should be profoundly nationalistic but I sincerely disagree and believe that any country with egg on its face should acknowledge it. More advanced discussion of CRT can happen in higher learning but at the HS and middle school level there's nothing wrong with saying "yeah we're not perfect we've oppressed X, Y, Z, and certain groups were given a head start.
I disagree with the "whites have had the upper hand" as a purposeful narrative for teaching our black and minority children. Once again "whites" are not a monolith. Teaching that affluent kids have the upper hand makes a lot more sense if that's the road you want to go but I don't think that's fair either. I would never teach a child they will have trouble succeeding based on any of these factors.
I lost my dad when I was seven Galway. Should have my teachers told me I'm behind the other children in my class because of my emotional trauma? Should they tell the countless black kids who deal with things one million times worse they can't succeed because of a, b, c, d, or e? How is this helpful at all?
All sorts of people regardless of race have advantages or as you say a "head start". But you are correct, black citizens have had the most difficult struggle. It's vitally important to teach the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement, along with many other ignominious and tragic events. No one disputes that slavery was the single lowest point of our history and discrimination and prejudice imbrues our national character to this day.
If these discussions are not happening in our schools they absolutely should be. However, this is far different than teaching that every construct of our system, in 2021 is racist and imposed on black citizens to keep them down and inferior to whites.
If a math professor is fired because he won't grade black students on a separate curve we have a serious problem Galway. It's beyond insulting and demeaning and quite frankly wrong. Our concern should be getting black students to much higher levels in reading and math starting in Elementary school. Instead, changing testing and other demeaning measures are always bandied about. I used to tutor mostly young black kids in Chicago for years and they did as well or better than white kids. The sad truth is many don't get the neccessary repetition and reinforcement because of a myriad of other reasons.
As far as my mom and her Ulster upbringing she was raised in Donegal which was a much different education than Derry in Northern Ireland. But to your point women didn't have a right to vote in Northern Ireland until 1972. When it came to "The Troubles" and Irish history she would describe her education as pro-Irish of course but she had comprehensive understanding of the conflict from both sides. There was a far greater emphasis on Irish history than political and social issues just NEast of her. Sorry for the dissertation Galway but that's kind of how my brain works. Take care.
-
I disagree with the "whites have had the upper hand" as a purposeful narrative for teaching our black and minority children. Once again "whites" are not a monolith. Teaching that affluent kids have the upper hand makes a lot more sense if that's the road you want to go but I don't think that's fair either. I would never teach a child they will have trouble succeeding based on any of these factors.
I lost my dad when I was seven Galway. Should have my teachers told me I'm behind the other children in my class because of my emotional trauma? Should they tell the countless black kids who deal with things one million times worse they can't succeed because of a, b, c, d, or e? How is this helpful at all?
All sorts of people regardless of race have advantages or as you say a "head start". But you are correct, black citizens have had the most difficult struggle. It's vitally important to teach the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement, along with many other ignominious and tragic events. No one disputes that slavery was the single lowest point of our history and discrimination and prejudice imprues our national character to this day.
If these discussions are not happening in our schools they absolutely should be. However, this is far different than teaching that every construct of our system, in 2021 is racist and imposed on black citizens to keep them down and inferior to whites.
If a math professor is fired because he won't grade black students on a separate curve we have a serious problem Galway. It's beyond insulting and demeaning and quite frankly wrong. Our concern should be getting black students to much higher levels in reading and math starting in Elementary school. Instead, changing testing and other demeaning measures are always bandied about. I used to tutor mostly young black kids in Chicago for years and they did as well or better than white kids. The sad truth is many don't get the neccessary repetition and reinforcement because of a myriad of other reasons.
As far as my mom and her Ulster upbringing she was raised in Donegal which was a much different education than Derry in Northern Ireland. But to your point women didn't have a right to vote in Northern Ireland until 1972. When it came to "The Troubles" and Irish history she would describe her education as pro-Irish of course but she had comprehensive understanding of the conflict from both sides. There was a far greater emphasis on Irish history than political and social issues just NEast of her. Sorry for the dissertation Galway but that's kind of how my brain works. Take care.
I can’t believe you still don’t get it.
-
I can’t believe you still don’t get it.
How someone can compare losing a parent to 400 years of discrimination is stunning.
Well, I guess when you consider that he supports a hard core white supremacist, it isn’t stunning at all.
-
The sad truth is many don't get the neccessary repetition and reinforcement because of a myriad of other reasons.
Precisely
-
I disagree with the "whites have had the upper hand" as a purposeful narrative for teaching our black and minority children. Once again "whites" are not a monolith. Teaching that affluent kids have the upper hand makes a lot more sense if that's the road you want to go but I don't think that's fair either. I would never teach a child they will have trouble succeeding based on any of these factors.
I lost my dad when I was seven Galway. Should have my teachers told me I'm behind the other children in my class because of my emotional trauma? Should they tell the countless black kids who deal with things one million times worse they can't succeed because of a, b, c, d, or e? How is this helpful at all?
All sorts of people regardless of race have advantages or as you say a "head start". But you are correct, black citizens have had the most difficult struggle. It's vitally important to teach the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement, along with many other ignominious and tragic events. No one disputes that slavery was the single lowest point of our history and discrimination and prejudice imbrues our national character to this day.
If these discussions are not happening in our schools they absolutely should be. However, this is far different than teaching that every construct of our system, in 2021 is racist and imposed on black citizens to keep them down and inferior to whites.
If a math professor is fired because he won't grade black students on a separate curve we have a serious problem Galway. It's beyond insulting and demeaning and quite frankly wrong. Our concern should be getting black students to much higher levels in reading and math starting in Elementary school. Instead, changing testing and other demeaning measures are always bandied about. I used to tutor mostly young black kids in Chicago for years and they did as well or better than white kids. The sad truth is many don't get the neccessary repetition and reinforcement because of a myriad of other reasons.
As far as my mom and her Ulster upbringing she was raised in Donegal which was a much different education than Derry in Northern Ireland. But to your point women didn't have a right to vote in Northern Ireland until 1972. When it came to "The Troubles" and Irish history she would describe her education as pro-Irish of course but she had comprehensive understanding of the conflict from both sides. There was a far greater emphasis on Irish history than political and social issues just NEast of her. Sorry for the dissertation Galway but that's kind of how my brain works. Take care.
Muggsy, you should go into the scarecrow business. There is a lot of a strawmen arguments here that no one anywhere is making. No one is telling Black kids that they can't succeed. No one is saying whites are "monolith" as you have repeatedly claimed. No one is saying all systems are racist. No one is saying that systemic racism is the only problem facing minority communities.
You say that you recognize that systemic racism exists. You say in this post that you recognize that the Black community face the most difficult struggle. But your message seems to be that we should just stop talking about it and deal with it. I just don't see things getting better with that approach.
-
If these discussions are not happening in our schools they absolutely should be. However, this is far different than teaching that every construct of our system, in 2021 is racist and imposed on black citizens to keep them down and inferior to whites.
Well then you should be happy, Muggs. Because nobody is teaching those things in high school, middle school or elementary school. And if (big if) any major universities are teaching it, it would be as part of an elective course that no student would be required to take.
-
While Alabamans of all races (but mostly Black) go hungry, a memorial park dedicated to remembering those who fought for the right to torture and enslave Black people receives hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/alabama-spends-more-than-a-half-million-dollars-a-year-on-a-confederate-memorial-black-historical-sites-struggle-to-keep-their-doors-open/2021/10/03/77953f7e-222a-11ec-8fd4-57a5d9bf4b47_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F34df4dc%2F615b29e59d2fda9d41fb49d9%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F38%2F74%2F615b29e59d2fda9d41fb49d9
A taxpayer-funded ode to racism. Still going strong in 2021.
-
Thank God. An 11 months long campaign of racist terror against Black citizens outside of Atlanta has finally ended with the apprehension of the suspect. It may have been the same person involved in the racist incidents at Albion College, Air Force Academy Prep, Hopwell Baptist, White Bear Lake HS, Smith College, Viterbo College, Oberlein College, St. Olaf College, etc. Anyone seen Jussie Smollett recently?
The first notes were received Dec. 21, 2020. Other notes were received Feb. 17, Feb. 22, March 1 and March 3. After a 6-month absence, a final note was received Sept. 6.
https://www.cbs46.com/news/black-woman-in-douglasville-accused-of-pretending-to-be-white-man-threatening-neighbors/article_4ccc0a7a-216c-11ec-bdef-3bd5aa74a0ef.html
-
While Alabamans of all races (but mostly Black) go hungry, a memorial park dedicated to remembering those who fought for the right to torture and enslave Black people receives hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/alabama-spends-more-than-a-half-million-dollars-a-year-on-a-confederate-memorial-black-historical-sites-struggle-to-keep-their-doors-open/2021/10/03/77953f7e-222a-11ec-8fd4-57a5d9bf4b47_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F34df4dc%2F615b29e59d2fda9d41fb49d9%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F38%2F74%2F615b29e59d2fda9d41fb49d9
A taxpayer-funded ode to racism. Still going strong in 2021.
Yikes
-
Thank God. An 11 months long campaign of racist terror against Black citizens outside of Atlanta has finally ended with the apprehension of the suspect. It may have been the same person involved in the racist incidents at Albion College, Air Force Academy Prep, Hopwell Baptist, White Bear Lake HS, Smith College, Viterbo College, Oberlein College, St. Olaf College, etc. Anyone seen Jussie Smollett recently?
The first notes were received Dec. 21, 2020. Other notes were received Feb. 17, Feb. 22, March 1 and March 3. After a 6-month absence, a final note was received Sept. 6.
https://www.cbs46.com/news/black-woman-in-douglasville-accused-of-pretending-to-be-white-man-threatening-neighbors/article_4ccc0a7a-216c-11ec-bdef-3bd5aa74a0ef.html
This is bad.
It's also a rarity, as opposed to the actual racism and white supremacy that goes on in our country every day, and it doesn't prove what you'd love it to prove.
-
Students of color, led by Asians, protest the ridiculous suspension of a Black principal in a mostly white community who was unfairly accused of promoting Critical Race Theory.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/2021/texas-teens-whitfield-critical-race-theory/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F34ea64b%2F616065ce9d2fda9d4103d11d%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F8%2F72%2F616065ce9d2fda9d4103d11d
The article includes this:
... A White man named Stetson Clark spoke at a board meeting in late July ... several weeks after he unsuccessfully ran for a seat on the school board — to accuse Whitfield of promoting critical race theory. As evidence, Clark pointed to Whitfield’s social media activity and to a letter the principal sent out shortly after Floyd’s killing, in which Whitfield wrote that systemic racism was “alive and well” and asked students and parents to “commit to being an anti-racist.” Clark, cheered by the audience, demanded that the board fire Whitfield.
Typical of an idiot who has no idea what CRT is.
Systemic racist IS alive and well, as demonstrated by this case.
-
Students of color, led by Asians, protest the ridiculous suspension of a Black principal in a mostly white community who was unfairly accused of promoting Critical Race Theory.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/2021/texas-teens-whitfield-critical-race-theory/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F34ea64b%2F616065ce9d2fda9d4103d11d%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F8%2F72%2F616065ce9d2fda9d4103d11d
The article includes this:
... A White man named Stetson Clark spoke at a board meeting in late July ... several weeks after he unsuccessfully ran for a seat on the school board — to accuse Whitfield of promoting critical race theory. As evidence, Clark pointed to Whitfield’s social media activity and to a letter the principal sent out shortly after Floyd’s killing, in which Whitfield wrote that systemic racism was “alive and well” and asked students and parents to “commit to being an anti-racist.” Clark, cheered by the audience, demanded that the board fire Whitfield.
Typical of an idiot who has no idea what CRT is.
Systemic racist IS alive and well, as demonstrated by this case.
It's not racist to not want to commit to being anti racist duh!