I like the phrase "unarmed black teenager". He was an unarmed black teenager when he was strong arming the store worker, also. Somehow I don't think that gave his victim any comfort.
Relapse wrote: I like the phrase "unarmed black teenager". He was an unarmed black teenager when he was strong arming the store worker, also. Somehow I don't think that gave his victim any comfort.
When your beating a mans face in, you are unarmed...
Relapse wrote: I like the phrase "unarmed black teenager". He was an unarmed black teenager when he was strong arming the store worker, also. Somehow I don't think that gave his victim any comfort.
When your beating a mans face in, you are unarmed...
But seriously some of the silliness with protestors make me sad.
Agreed, especially since they would have a valid point that could be respected if they didn't take it so over the top, making it a "Blacks only" kind of situation and state that every black person killed by police was murdered.
One of the best examples I can think of with police that should have been sent away is the Kelly Thomas incident that was recorded in detail from start to finish. He was literally beaten and tasered to death by several officers, all the while gasping he couldn't breath, and in the end, calling for his father before going into a coma that he never woke from. Of course, he was a White homeless person, so his death doesn't mean anything to these people.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wow, The second one is more stupid. Seriously, inconveniencing others who are just having a good time with friends or family.
Yeah, that's how protesting actual gets people to take action. If an issue never impacts you, why would you ever care enough about it to do anything? Once it starts impacting your life, then you will take action.
Granted, sometimes tha action is counter to what the protesters want, but at least you are now involved with the issue; which is better than apathy.
That's the whole premise of protesting. If a protest doesn't disrupt anyone/anything then that protest is a waste of time.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wow, The second one is more stupid. Seriously, inconveniencing others who are just having a good time with friends or family.
Yeah, that's how protesting actual gets people to take action. If an issue never impacts you, why would you ever care enough about it to do anything? Once it starts impacting your life, then you will take action.
Granted, sometimes tha action is counter to what the protesters want, but at least you are now involved with the issue; which is better than apathy.
That's the whole premise of protesting. If a protest doesn't disrupt anyone/anything then that protest is a waste of time.
Being pissed at the protestors won't get any help for your issue though. It's like the guys who were blocking interstates in St. Louis. You think the people stuck on the highway for who knows how long, had anything but anger at the protesters?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wow, The second one is more stupid. Seriously, inconveniencing others who are just having a good time with friends or family.
Yeah, that's how protesting actual gets people to take action. If an issue never impacts you, why would you ever care enough about it to do anything? Once it starts impacting your life, then you will take action.
Granted, sometimes tha action is counter to what the protesters want, but at least you are now involved with the issue; which is better than apathy.
That's the whole premise of protesting. If a protest doesn't disrupt anyone/anything then that protest is a waste of time.
Of course, my action would be not to got to restaurants in Oakland. That might not have been the intended effect.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wow, The second one is more stupid. Seriously, inconveniencing others who are just having a good time with friends or family.
Yeah, that's how protesting actual gets people to take action. If an issue never impacts you, why would you ever care enough about it to do anything? Once it starts impacting your life, then you will take action.
Granted, sometimes tha action is counter to what the protesters want, but at least you are now involved with the issue; which is better than apathy.
That's the whole premise of protesting. If a protest doesn't disrupt anyone/anything then that protest is a waste of time.
If the protestors were, as I said not so over the top with their claims, they might gain more respect for their stand. As it is, they are mixing too much garbage in with the message and making it exclusively only caring about Black people. Take for instance, the fact they were saying , "every 28 hours". Sorry, but that is a load of crap equivalent to someone one rudely interrupting me to say the Earth is flat:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wow, The second one is more stupid. Seriously, inconveniencing others who are just having a good time with friends or family.
Yeah, that's how protesting actual gets people to take action. If an issue never impacts you, why would you ever care enough about it to do anything? Once it starts impacting your life, then you will take action.
Granted, sometimes tha action is counter to what the protesters want, but at least you are now involved with the issue; which is better than apathy.
That's the whole premise of protesting. If a protest doesn't disrupt anyone/anything then that protest is a waste of time.
If I'm eating food with my gramps on his birthday, I'm unlikely to think their right. I'm more likely to hate them aand be annoyed.
I also love the line about how people with money and privilege get the leisure of brunch. Well maybe if you worked and went to school, so would you.
So I've been following this issue since it started, and there's a few things that really annoy me. Mainly, why did the protestors try and turn this into a racial issue rather than a simple protest against police brutality? Surely there are more regular instances of people (of any colour) being killed (justifiably or not, that's obviously irrelevant... ) than exclusively black people?
There is a systemic bias against black people. This does not mean that people are actively racist, it seems to mostly be an unconscious bias. That's why these things are causing a stir, because black people are getting sick of having the system be biased against them.
-Shrike- wrote: So I've been following this issue since it started, and there's a few things that really annoy me. Mainly, why did the protestors try and turn this into a racial issue rather than a simple protest against police brutality? Surely there are more regular instances of people (of any colour) being killed (justifiably or not, that's obviously irrelevant... ) than exclusively black people?
Because, it's about lashing out in the world and not accepting your own resposibility.
Da Boss wrote: There is a systemic bias against black people. This does not mean that people are actively racist, it seems to mostly be an unconscious bias. That's why these things are causing a stir, because black people are getting sick of having the system be biased against them.
A: No. They get tons of free iBama phones.
B. No. Because this one time I know a guy who got arrested and he wasn't black.
C. No. I've never been treated unreasonably by the police and this one time I listening to a Kanye West song.
D. Cops never know if somebody might be bristling with weaponry, I mean like chain-guns and laser-rifles hidden all over. So they have to treat everyone like they are.
Hey... I'm living near the epicenter of this "movement". Forgive me if my views are slanted.
Epicenter...slanted..I see what you did there!
Interesting that in the NY case, the officer in charge was an African American woman.
Is there bias? Of course. Derp! You want to get support though, make it the larger discussion of the police trend to militarization/occupation tactics since the start to the War on Drugs (har har) in the 1980s.
Da Boss wrote: There is a systemic bias against black people. This does not mean that people are actively racist, it seems to mostly be an unconscious bias. That's why these things are causing a stir, because black people are getting sick of having the system be biased against them.
A: No. They get tons of free iBama phones.
B. No. Because this one time I know a guy who got arrested and he wasn't black.
C. No. I've never been treated unreasonably by the police and this one time I listening to a Kanye West song.
D. Cops never know if somebody might be bristling with weaponry, I mean like chain-guns and laser-rifles hidden all over. So they have to treat everyone like they are.
In some places, D may not be such an unreasonable assumption...
Da Boss wrote: There is a systemic bias against black people. This does not mean that people are actively racist, it seems to mostly be an unconscious bias. That's why these things are causing a stir, because black people are getting sick of having the system be biased against them.
A: No. They get tons of free iBama phones.
B. No. Because this one time I know a guy who got arrested and he wasn't black.
C. No. I've never been treated unreasonably by the police and this one time I listening to a Kanye West song.
D. Cops never know if somebody might be bristling with weaponry, I mean like chain-guns and laser-rifles hidden all over. So they have to treat everyone like they are.
In some places, D may not be such an unreasonable assumption...
It's true. Fiends everywhere trying to kill me for Jet, Vipers lying in gas stations. Frellin Mojave.
Hey... I'm living near the epicenter of this "movement". Forgive me if my views are slanted.
Epicenter...slanted..I see what you did there!
Interesting that in the NY case, the officer in charge was an African American woman.
Is there bias? Of course. Derp! You want to get support though, make it the larger discussion of the police trend to militarization/occupation tactics since the start to the War on Drugs (har har) in the 1980s.
Why though? I mean, yeah the militarisation thing is an issue, but is a systematic bias(and there is one) against a certain ethnic group that has resulted in several questionably-justified deaths at the hands of police and a near total breakdown of the relationship between the police and that ethnic group somehow not serious enough of an issue on its own? Frankly the whole "it should be about wider issues" argument seems calculated to sweep the racial element of the problem under the rug because it makes too many white Americans uncomfortable; but they SHOULD feel uncomfortable.
I think protesting is a cherished American tradition and many of these people have wholly reasonable concerns about the way they are policed.
That being said, in my opinion it's equally inappropriate to have a political protest at a gathering honoring a veteran as it is to turn your back on a mayor at a funeral. It's equal parts classless, and YoureNotHelping.jpg... No matter how justified your concerns are, neither one of these events are about you.
Hey... I'm living near the epicenter of this "movement". Forgive me if my views are slanted.
Epicenter...slanted..I see what you did there!
Interesting that in the NY case, the officer in charge was an African American woman.
Is there bias? Of course. Derp! You want to get support though, make it the larger discussion of the police trend to militarization/occupation tactics since the start to the War on Drugs (har har) in the 1980s.
Why though? I mean, yeah the militarisation thing is an issue, but is a systematic bias(and there is one) against a certain ethnic group that has resulted in several questionably-justified deaths at the hands of police and a near total breakdown of the relationship between the police and that ethnic group somehow not serious enough of an issue on its own? Frankly the whole "it should be about wider issues" argument seems calculated to sweep the racial element of the problem under the rug because it makes too many white Americans uncomfortable; but they SHOULD feel uncomfortable.
Its a false narrative. There has been lots of discussion about increasingly harsh police tactics and suspect killings. Interstingly, a lot more of it is on the right wing foam at the mouth spectrum of the community.
Saying its just an African thing is frankly, a lie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Shame. The cops killing a disproportionate number of black citizens is also not helping things too much.
Its not though.
Compare it to the arrest rate and rate of cops murdered by Afircan Americans. Its not perfect, but its a similar corollary.
Personally, I think we have to look at protesting in 2015 very differently than we looked at it in 1960, with the proliferation of information via the internet and social media.
It's a completely different world. People aren't blind to these issues any more like they may have been in 1960, not even remotely. With that in mind, I don't think these kinds of protests help any of these causes, especially when they label them with a particular race. If they really wanted to bring non-blacks into the cause, they wouldn't create such a division along racial lines like they do with the brunch. I don't think with this particular one, they have any interesting in bringing people together.
This "black brunch" had a sole purpose of "disrupting whites." What purpose does that solve. How do you get other whites on board with that? I can get on board with with #blacklivesmatter because they absolutely do. But this "protest" may have just been called #disruptwhitey as much as it was #blackbrunch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Shame. The cops killing a disproportionate number of black citizens is also not helping things too much.
What a lot of the media likes to leave out when they spout these numbers is how many of them are killed while armed or in firefights with the police. Kinda an important piece of information, don't you think?
Da Boss wrote: Shame. The cops killing a disproportionate number of black citizens is also not helping things too much.
What a lot of the media likes to leave out when they spout these numbers is how many of them are killed while armed or in firefights with the police. Kinda an important piece of information, don't you think?
That plus the high proportions of the black population who is involved with crime.
Black's aren't being targeted, its just that the portion of people who are black and involved with crime is way higher than the ratio of the total population. If people actually focused on addressing crime they'd solve this problem. But its easier just to cry "racism" instead of even just accepting what the actual problem is.
Even when those factors are controlled, the entire justice system can be shown to clearly have a bias against black people. Not to mention various other systems. We all know black people are more likely to get convicted, get a longer and harsher sentence than a white person convicted of a similar crime. Black people are more likely to be sentenced to death.
Da Boss wrote: Even when those factors are controlled, the entire justice system can be shown to clearly have a bias against black people. Not to mention various other systems. We all know black people are more likely to get convicted, get a longer and harsher sentence than a white person convicted of a similar crime. Black people are more likely to be sentenced to death.
Da Boss wrote: Even when those factors are controlled, the entire justice system can be shown to clearly have a bias against black people. Not to mention various other systems. We all know black people are more likely to get convicted, get a longer and harsher sentence than a white person convicted of a similar crime. Black people are more likely to be sentenced to death.
This makes the system lose legitimacy.
If the system is biased against black people, then why'd they arrest Jeffery Dhamer?
Checkmate race baiters.
Da Boss wrote: Even when those factors are controlled, the entire justice system can be shown to clearly have a bias against black people. Not to mention various other systems. We all know black people are more likely to get convicted, get a longer and harsher sentence than a white person convicted of a similar crime. Black people are more likely to be sentenced to death.
This makes the system lose legitimacy.
Please show it before you make the statement. I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but you have to prove it. You can't just say it.
Da Boss wrote: Even when those factors are controlled, the entire justice system can be shown to clearly have a bias against black people. Not to mention various other systems. We all know black people are more likely to get convicted, get a longer and harsher sentence than a white person convicted of a similar crime. Black people are more likely to be sentenced to death.
This makes the system lose legitimacy.
I'm not denying that at all. As much as I fething HATE the "white privilege" movement, I certainly acknowledge there are some facets of my life that I gain benefit from being white. Now, nearly all of those are when it comes to the criminal justice system, which is mostly a moot point anyway because I don't break the law, but I certainly acknowledge the disproportion trends in the justice system in regards to punishment, etc.
But again, I think we really have to take the time to look at protesting in 2015 very differently than in the past.
I'm simply not convinced actions like this "Black Brunch" do anything to further any cause, unless the cause is, as I said, "feth Whitey."
Da Boss wrote: Even when those factors are controlled, the entire justice system can be shown to clearly have a bias against black people. Not to mention various other systems. We all know black people are more likely to get convicted, get a longer and harsher sentence than a white person convicted of a similar crime. Black people are more likely to be sentenced to death.
Out of curiosity, in your mind does showing that there is a disproportionate number of black people on death row help or hurt the argument? Just plopping it down doesn't really do any good to anyone and seems to make a lot of assumptions i.e. you addressed nothing by merely having a link.
Da Boss wrote: Even when those factors are controlled, the entire justice system can be shown to clearly have a bias against black people. Not to mention various other systems. We all know black people are more likely to get convicted, get a longer and harsher sentence than a white person convicted of a similar crime. Black people are more likely to be sentenced to death.
Out of curiosity, in your mind does showing that there is a disproportionate number of black people on death row help or hurt the argument? Just plopping it down doesn't really do any good to anyone and seems to make a lot of assumptions i.e. you addressed nothing by merely having a link.
Its better then me saying "Its not true." Here's a link. Go over it. Draw your own conclusion.
Out of curiosity, in your mind does showing that there is a disproportionate number of black people on death row help or hurt the argument? Just plopping it down doesn't really do any good to anyone and seems to make a lot of assumptions i.e. you addressed nothing by merely having a link.
Out of curiosity, in your mind does showing that there is a disproportionate number of black people on death row help or hurt the argument? Just plopping it down doesn't really do any good to anyone and seems to make a lot of assumptions i.e. you addressed nothing by merely having a link.
How are those numbers disproportionate?
Because % wise, in terms of total population, it is disproportionate. If there's 100 blue jelly beans and 1000 green jelly beans, if there are equal populations of jelly beans consumed, there will be a disproportionate number of blue jelly beans consumed.
The problem with all of the crime/prison statistics is that there really is a bit of chicken or the egg situation when it comes to black prison populations.
I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.
We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.
I think it's B as well. Now since we both agree there is problem and that it's systemic, this naturally means that we also agree that there are one or more problems with the system.
Now, what do you think are some likely problems in the system and why?
I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.
We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.
I think it's B as well. Now since we both agree there is problem and that it's systemic, this naturally means that we also agree that there are one or more problems with the system.
Now, what do you think are some likely problems in the system and why?
I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.
We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.
I think it's B as well. Now since we both agree there is problem and that it's systemic, this naturally means that we also agree that there are one or more problems with the system.
Now, what do you think are some likely problems in the system and why?
If by system, you mean a culture that propagates that type of behavior, then yeah I guess we can agree it's the system.
I don't think killing or disrespecting any human being is in anyway the best course of action in terms of protesting. Or trying to prove point in general is best through reasoned debate.
Though I am not surprised in general it is difficult to treat human beings as human.
The numbers requires one of two things to be true:
A: Blacks are inherently more prone to criminal behavior.
B: There are external systemic factors that account for the disproportion.
These are the two only two possibilities. Which one do you do you think accounts for it?
or
C. the proportion of crimes committed increases with socio economic class.
Bingo! That's why I asked my question about the system. To see if that was somehow included in option B. I used to work across from the Iberville projects in New Orleans and saw more than a fair share of crimes committed there as opposed to other parts of the city I either lived in or frequented.
I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.
We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.
Well, we sort of are in this particular instance, as the purpose of "Black Brunch" was to disrupt white people specifically.
You may as well say this justifies the discussion be centered on brunch broadly, since it was disrupting that meal specifically as well.
That the protest meant to impact, gain the attention of, or broadly deal with white people does not necessarily the protest was about white people. It also does not mean the cause of what was being protested was specifically "white people" or "whiteness" in a strict sense. However despite that, "white people" or "whiteness" can still be relevant, and getting their attention or trying to send some message to them or about them can still be meaningful.
Recognizing that and coming to understanding about what the underlying causes of the events being protested are and how "white people" might fit into that broader context is a prerequisite to having a discussion about if the protest may have been justified, relevant or effective or not.
I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.
We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.
Well, we sort of are in this particular instance, as the purpose of "Black Brunch" was to disrupt white people specifically.
You may as well say this justifies the discussion be centered on brunch broadly, since it was disrupting that meal specifically as well.
That the protest meant to impact, gain the attention of, or broadly deal with white people does not necessarily the protest was about white people. It also does not mean the cause of what was being protested was specifically "white people" or "whiteness" in a strict sense. However despite that, "white people" or "whiteness" can still be relevant, and getting their attention or trying to send some message to them or about them can still be meaningful.
Recognizing that and coming to understanding about what the cause of what the protest is about and how "white people" might fit into that, is prerequisite to having a discussion about if the protest may have been justified, relevant or effective or not.
The trouble is the protestors undercut their message by being obnoxious and giving out incorrect information.
Relapse wrote: The trouble is the protestors undercut their message by being obnoxious and giving out incorrect information.
I would assert that in the context of this discussion, we've had insufficient information to make that determination. In order to make an assertion about if they're undercutting their message or not, there at least has to be some understanding of what the underlying is message meant be. "Interrupting white supremacy" is certainly quotable but I'm not entirely sure it's the kind of thing you can take at face value as the complete picture of group's motivation and goals.
I suppose if you take it rather literally accepting the truth of it at face value, it's justified but possibly not effective.
If you don't accept it at all and reject any notion of unfairness entirely chalking things up to "Culture" or the like, the protests are neither effective nor justified.
If you reject any notion of unfairness, but accept that they're just trying to be a "bag of dicks" rather than lodging unjustified complaints then the protests are unjustified but possibly effective.
I would suspect however that none of those three options really reflect the reality of the situation. Having any meaningful discussion about the reality of the situation must be first having a clear understanding of what the reality is.
The numbers requires one of two things to be true:
A: Blacks are inherently more prone to criminal behavior.
B: There are external systemic factors that account for the disproportion.
These are the two only two possibilities. Which one do you do you think accounts for it?
or
C. the proportion of crimes committed increases with socio economic class.
Bingo! That's why I asked my question about the system. To see if that was somehow included in option B. I used to work across from the Iberville projects in New Orleans and saw more than a fair share of crimes committed there as opposed to other parts of the city I either lived in or frequented.
I'd argue the majority is:
1. higher arrest rates (because, they were guilty of committing stupid visible crimes)
2. higher conviction rates (because they can't afford awesome attorneys)
3. higher punishment rates (because above and some actual discriminatory sentencing built into some laws like crack vs. cocaine punishments)
In actuality this theory works because, in essence, everyone is right.
Relapse wrote: The trouble is the protestors undercut their message by being obnoxious and giving out incorrect information.
I would assert that in the context of this discussion, we've had insufficient information to make that determination. In order to make an assertion about if they're undercutting their message or not, there at least has to be some understanding of what the underlying is message meant be. "Interrupting white supremacy" is certainly quotable but I'm not entirely sure it's the kind of thing you can take at face value as the complete picture of group's motivation and goals.
I suppose if you take it rather literally accepting the truth of it at face value, it's justified but possibly not effective.
If you don't accept it at all and reject any notion of unfairness entirely chalking things up to "Culture" or the like, the protests are neither effective nor justified.
If you reject any notion of unfairness, but accept that they're just trying to be a "bag of dicks" rather than lodging unjustified complaints then the protests are unjustified but possibly effective.
I would suspect however that none of those three options really reflect the reality of the situation. Having any meaningful discussion about the reality of the situation must be first having a clear understanding of what the reality is.
The whole "every 28 hours" thing they were jabbering on about was proven incorrect a while ago, yet they continue with it. They are dealing in fabrication with that one.
Relapse wrote: The trouble is the protestors undercut their message by being obnoxious and giving out incorrect information.
I would assert that in the context of this discussion, we've had insufficient information to make that determination. In order to make an assertion about if they're undercutting their message or not, there at least has to be some understanding of what the underlying is message meant be. "Interrupting white supremacy" is certainly quotable but I'm not entirely sure it's the kind of thing you can take at face value as the complete picture of group's motivation and goals.
I suppose if you take it rather literally accepting the truth of it at face value, it's justified but possibly not effective.
If you don't accept it at all and reject any notion of unfairness entirely chalking things up to "Culture" or the like, the protests are neither effective nor justified.
If you reject any notion of unfairness, but accept that they're just trying to be a "bag of dicks" rather than lodging unjustified complaints then the protests are unjustified but possibly effective.
I would suspect however that none of those three options really reflect the reality of the situation. Having any meaningful discussion about the reality of the situation must be first having a clear understanding of what the reality is.
Oh contraire, one can easily undercut their message by preclusding people from wanting to investigate what your message is with your tomfoloolery.
I mean as an example, does anyone care what the KKK says its message is?
Its seems to inhabit Democratic strongholds. Dumpwater Florida appears immune.*
*Note Frazzled is fine with legal marches. Thats the First Amendment in action, and we agree on many of the issues. Frazzled is not fine with stupid protests, especially from college dweebs who's best job post graduation will be the same Starbucks they are working at now, and riots should be put down with Mossberg 500s.
The whole "every 28 hours" thing they were jabbering on about was proven incorrect a while ago, yet they continue with it. They are dealing in fabrication with that one.
You can't really prove or disprove that claim in any way shape or form to be honest. Police are not required by law to report how many people they kill in any meaningful sense, and they don't do so. We really have no idea how many people police kill in the line of duty, black or otherwise. We can at best establish minimums.
Still even if we determine every word out their was spun whole cloth from fairy dust, it still requires a more nuanced understanding of what the issue is before making statements about how much or in what fashion such fabrications would "undercut the message".
Not that I'm advocating for dishonesty under any circumstances. It's just hard to do any meaningful analysis of falsehood (or anything else), in a vacuum.
Bingo! That's why I asked my question about the system. To see if that was somehow included in option B. I used to work across from the Iberville projects in New Orleans and saw more than a fair share of crimes committed there as opposed to other parts of the city I either lived in or frequented.
Yes. Socioeconomic factors are certainly a part of the system. However even if you determine that the current issues are directly caused only by socioeconomic factors with no racial bias, you can't divorce the current socioeconomic factors from their historic (and highly racial), causes.
Frazzled wrote: Its seems to inhabit Democratic strongholds. Dumpwater Florida appears immune.*
*Note Frazzled is fine with legal marches. Thats the First Amendment in action, and we agree on many of the issues. Frazzled is not fine with stupid protests, especially from college dweebs who's best job post graduation will be the same Starbucks they are working at now, and riots should be put down with Mossberg 500s.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wow, The second one is more stupid. Seriously, inconveniencing others who are just having a good time with friends or family.
Yeah, that's how protesting actual gets people to take action. If an issue never impacts you, why would you ever care enough about it to do anything? Once it starts impacting your life, then you will take action.
Granted, sometimes tha action is counter to what the protesters want, but at least you are now involved with the issue; which is better than apathy.
That's the whole premise of protesting. If a protest doesn't disrupt anyone/anything then that protest is a waste of time.
that is the premise of disruptive protests.
protests do not have to disrupt anything to not be a waste of time as a rule.
that you equate disrupting other peoples lives with the only premise of protesting is quite out of touch.
its just as bother some to walk into a brunch restaurant and start shouting names of people who have been shot as it is to walk into any restaurant/public place and start shouting about whatever political/moral/religious/any opinions on anything you might have,
its not different then a bunch of pro life activists or peta people walking in, shouting for 5 minutes and disrupting everyones meal, and the net outcome is the same as if you just stood on a soap box in the street like any other preacher.
I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.
We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.
Well, we sort of are in this particular instance, as the purpose of "Black Brunch" was to disrupt white people specifically.
You may as well say this justifies the discussion be centered on brunch broadly, since it was disrupting that meal specifically as well.
That the protest meant to impact, gain the attention of, or broadly deal with white people does not necessarily the protest was about white people. It also does not mean the cause of what was being protested was specifically "white people" or "whiteness" in a strict sense. However despite that, "white people" or "whiteness" can still be relevant, and getting their attention or trying to send some message to them or about them can still be meaningful.
Recognizing that and coming to understanding about what the underlying causes of the events being protested are and how "white people" might fit into that broader context is a prerequisite to having a discussion about if the protest may have been justified, relevant or effective or not.
Did you read the article I linked, at all?
They specifically target whites and 'white locations."
Frazzled wrote: How do you know they don't? AT worst where are they getting their number from?
I know they don't because they numbers aren't available. If you go looking you can't find them. Just google around for the figures on how many people die in confrontations with police every year. You'll find a bevy of "at least"s and "estimates show"s but no concrete "this many"s with sources. You'll find researchers again and again saying the data simply isn't available. Seriously go look, the information is not out there.
I suppose the worst place they could be getting their information is off the top of their I head. Like "I think 10,000 sound sounds like a good number. Let's say the police kill 10,000 people. No wait, say 10,001 the extra 1 shows it's serious.".
More likely someone pulled one of the more generous estimates and interpreted it liberally.
However that someone miscalculated a figure for a snappy talking-point is probably not the most productive thing to fixate on one way or another. Even writing the point off as the insane ramblings of jabbering madman, doesn't mean there isn't something deeper to this whole affair.
Frazzled wrote: How do you know they don't? AT worst where are they getting their number from?
The same place we always go to for information Frazzled, unreliable sources.
Yeah when I saw some of the data thrown around I started laughing quite a bit. Some of them were thrown around and exaggerated to succh a degree it is kind of interesting how no one has caught onto it.
I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.
We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.
Well, we sort of are in this particular instance, as the purpose of "Black Brunch" was to disrupt white people specifically.
You may as well say this justifies the discussion be centered on brunch broadly, since it was disrupting that meal specifically as well.
That the protest meant to impact, gain the attention of, or broadly deal with white people does not necessarily the protest was about white people. It also does not mean the cause of what was being protested was specifically "white people" or "whiteness" in a strict sense. However despite that, "white people" or "whiteness" can still be relevant, and getting their attention or trying to send some message to them or about them can still be meaningful.
Recognizing that and coming to understanding about what the underlying causes of the events being protested are and how "white people" might fit into that broader context is a prerequisite to having a discussion about if the protest may have been justified, relevant or effective or not.
Did you read the article I linked, at all?
They specifically target whites and 'white locations."
Well, seems like there are plenty of white americans in this thread who seem to have very little problem with just accepting the status quo, so is it that crazy an idea?
Albatross wrote: I liked the brunch thing, if I'm being honest. I think the reactions of some people on here bear out that it is a good idea.
right, so its ok if a religious group goes into a restaurant that you eat at, shouts at you for five minutes about how premarital sex and abortions mean you are bound for hell, thats ok right?
and its ok if they specifically target areas they think are rife with those who have sex/abortions/kids out of wedlock.
Not only is that ok and its to be expected/encouraged as something we need more of in society at large.
I think you owe westboro an apology if thats what you really think, as while you dont believe in what westboro believes, you certainly approve of their methods.
It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.
Its my major problem with people in general. Especially with people thinking. "MY SNIPER RIFLE ON COD WAS NERFED! I AM GOING TO THREATEN THIS FAQ GUY With his life!"
So this is a bunch of hipsters protesting. Sure looks like it. No one else could ever "protest" against "White Supremacy" in such a stupid way. Really wut? It's in a public place where anybody can go. Get a jerb and you could eat or drink there yourself.
Albatross wrote: I liked the brunch thing, if I'm being honest. I think the reactions of some people on here bear out that it is a good idea.
right, so its ok if a religious group goes into a restaurant that you eat at, shouts at you for five minutes about how premarital sex and abortions mean you are bound for hell, thats ok right?
and its ok if they specifically target areas they think are rife with those who have sex/abortions/kids out of wedlock.
Not only is that ok and its to be expected/encouraged as something we need more of in society at large.
I think you owe westboro an apology if thats what you really think, as while you dont believe in what westboro believes, you certainly approve of their methods.
If you can't see the difference between 'god hates f*gs' and saying the names of people shot dead by the police, then... I dunno. I'm guessing you're not much fun at parties.
It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.
Its my major problem with people in general. Especially with people thinking. "MY SNIPER RIFLE ON COD WAS NERFED! I AM GOING TO THREATEN THIS FAQ GUY With his life!"
We're all dieing as time goes by. Now getting opted out (Killed) is something different.
It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.
Oh feth that nonsense. People are dying everywhere, every day. Protests targeted at any race are racist. It's pretty simple.
Here's a question. In your personal experience, in your personal life just as an individual how many times have you had a disagreement or fight with somebody else and on reflection it turns out that things were "pretty simple" in hindsight?
It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.
Oh feth that nonsense. People are dying everywhere, every day. Protests targeted at any race are racist. It's pretty simple.
No, you're being simple. That line of thinking is reductive - I'm sure you wouldn't think that black South Africans protesting against a government controlled by white South Africans was racist, would you? Protest is not always about apportioning blame, it can also be about raising awareness, which I firmly believe this is. Maybe they think white people need to wake up to what's happening to their fellow citizens, and join them in helping to change it. It certainly won't change otherwise.
It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.
Oh feth that nonsense. People are dying everywhere, every day. Protests targeted at any race are racist. It's pretty simple.
No, you're being simple. That line of thinking is reductive - I'm sure you wouldn't think that black South Africans protesting against a government controlled by white South Africans, would you? Protest is not always about apportioning blame, it can also be about raising awareness, which I firmly believe this is. Maybe they think white people need to wake up to what's happening to their fellow citizens, and join them in helping to change it. It certainly won't change otherwise.
Those protests looked like they were apportioning blame, not raising "awareness."
Considering the richers they are annoying I am double PLus pleased. Please continue.
A town hall meeting with U.S. Sen Ron Wyden was called off Saturday afternoon when "hands up, don't shoot" protests broke out.
The event, at Portland Community College's Southeast Campus, was canceled after 45 minutes.
More than 100 protestors entered the Wyden event shortly after 2:30 p.m. shouting, "I can't breathe" and "hands up, don't shoot."
Wyden, D-Oregon, stepped away from the microphone as the protesters moved to the front of the meeting area and continued shouting and holding placards.
Attendees of the event started to get frustrated. Some began confronting the protesters, urging them to stop.
Wyden persuaded the protesters to be silent, briefly, promising he would allow them to air their concerns early in the event. They were silent as Wyden awarded medals for heroism during World War II to 100-year-old Navy veteran Dario Raschio.
After accepting his awards, Raschio addressed the protesters, saying, "These people who are here for a cause, whatever it might be -- show respect to Senator Wyden," to which the crowd burst into applause.
However, immediately following the award presentation, the chanting began again. Protesters stated it was "their town meeting" to which Wyden responded, "Yes, it's your town meeting, but it's theirs as well" as he gestured toward the audience.
Demonstrators across the country have used "don't shoot" and "hands up" as rallying cries following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, last fall. "I can't breathe" references the death of Eric Garner, an unarmed black man who died in July following a chokehold by a New York City police officer.
A coalition called Don't Shoot Portland had planned a rally on Southeast 82nd Avenue on Saturday afternoon and two were arrested earlier in the afternoon for allegedly blocking the avenue.
At 3:15, after Wyden's event had been delayed by 45 minutes, it was announced that the town hall was not going to be held. Many attendees left, shaking their heads and frustrated by the event.
Wyden did meet with a few members of various causes privately, in a conference room with a half-dozen police officers standing outside.
"The reason I hold these town meetings is because I want to give everybody a chance to talk," Wyden said. "I'm acutely aware that people are frustrated about what's going on in Washington D.C. They are certainly frustrated about the topics that the protesters brought up. I just so wish we could have had a real dialogue."
Wyden continued, "I think that the symbolism of having a veteran 100 years old, who fought so gallantly so that those who disagree with government policies and want to exercise their First Amendment rights could be heard, that's what made today so poignant."
"We are certainly going to reschedule it," he said. "It's important to be able to throw open the doors of government to everybody. That's why town hall meetings are so important."
Idiots. Just idiots. Someone needs to guide this or give it a direction across the country.
It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.
Oh feth that nonsense. People are dying everywhere, every day. Protests targeted at any race are racist. It's pretty simple.
No, you're being simple. That line of thinking is reductive - I'm sure you wouldn't think that black South Africans protesting against a government controlled by white South Africans was racist, would you? Protest is not always about apportioning blame, it can also be about raising awareness, which I firmly believe this is. Maybe they think white people need to wake up to what's happening to their fellow citizens, and join them in helping to change it. It certainly won't change otherwise.
We disagree in this instance. I've no more to say to you on that, honestly, and you're not convincing me that this instance did anything but racistly assign blame.
The whole "every 28 hours" thing they were jabbering on about was proven incorrect a while ago, yet they continue with it. They are dealing in fabrication with that one.
You can't really prove or disprove that claim in any way shape or form to be honest. Police are not required by law to report how many people they kill in any meaningful sense, and they don't do so. We really have no idea how many people police kill in the line of duty, black or otherwise. We can at best establish minimums.
Still even if we determine every word out their was spun whole cloth from fairy dust, it still requires a more nuanced understanding of what the issue is before making statements about how much or in what fashion such fabrications would "undercut the message".
Not that I'm advocating for dishonesty under any circumstances. It's just hard to do any meaningful analysis of falsehood (or anything else), in a vacuum.
Bingo! That's why I asked my question about the system. To see if that was somehow included in option B. I used to work across from the Iberville projects in New Orleans and saw more than a fair share of crimes committed there as opposed to other parts of the city I either lived in or frequented.
Yes. Socioeconomic factors are certainly a part of the system. However even if you determine that the current issues are directly caused only by socioeconomic factors with no racial bias, you can't divorce the current socioeconomic factors from their historic (and highly racial), causes.
The every 28 hours claim was dissected in this article and shown to be hogwash:
I was under the belief that police do have to account for everyone they killed.
You are incorrect in that belief.
If you don't believe me try to go look for the figures. You'll find nothing comprehensive. Any claim one way another about how many people police do or don't kill is strictly speculative because the actual figures do not exist. The reports (we must simply trust they exist), are often held interally to the departments and they're under no obligation to report them publicly or to the federal government.
I was under the belief that police do have to account for everyone they killed.
You are incorrect in that belief.
If you don't believe me try to go look for the figures. You'll find nothing comprehensive. Any claim one way another about how many people police do or don't kill is strictly speculative because the actual figures do not exist.
I'll ask some officers I know to see what the procedure is and get back to you on that.
If you can't see the difference between 'god hates f*gs' and saying the names of people shot dead by the police, then... I dunno. I'm guessing you're not much fun at parties.
I never said they were shouting profanities, dont make things up like, i simply used the example of a religious group shouting whatever it is they think at you for 5 minutes, could be "dont have abortions" or just a 5 minute chant of "jeeeesuuuussss" for all it matters.
I also brought up PETA, yet you conveniently ignore that
if you cannot see the similarities between shouting the names of dead people shot by cops, vs shouting about dead babies or dead animals, then you are not much good at honest debate.
You are just trying to do mental gymnastics to explain why its ok for one group to yell their "insert belief here" at people and not another.
if they want to shout their beliefs at people, they can do it on the soap box on the corner just like we make the preachers.
It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.
Oh feth that nonsense. People are dying everywhere, every day. Protests targeted at any race are racist. It's pretty simple.
No, you're being simple. That line of thinking is reductive - I'm sure you wouldn't think that black South Africans protesting against a government controlled by white South Africans was racist, would you? Protest is not always about apportioning blame, it can also be about raising awareness, which I firmly believe this is. Maybe they think white people need to wake up to what's happening to their fellow citizens, and join them in helping to change it. It certainly won't change otherwise.
We disagree in this instance. I've no more to say to you on that, honestly, and you're not convincing me that this instance did anything but racistly assign blame.
Cheers.
I'm not hear to convince you of anything at all, old chum. You asked me why I liked the protest, if I recall correctly.
If you can't see the difference between 'god hates f*gs' and saying the names of people shot dead by the police, then... I dunno. I'm guessing you're not much fun at parties.
I never said they were shouting profanities, dont make things up like, i simply used the example of a religious group shouting whatever it is they think at you for 5 minutes, could be "dont have abortions" or just a 5 minute chant of "jeeeesuuuussss" for all it matters.
I also brought up PETA, yet you conveniently ignore that
if you cannot see the similarities between shouting the names of dead people shot by cops, vs shouting about dead babies or dead animals, then you are not much good at honest debate.
You are just trying to do mental gymnastics to explain why its ok for one group to yell their "insert belief here" at people and not another.
It's quite telling that you would feel it requires 'mental gymnastics' to merely point out that something being similar to a thing does not make it THE EXACT SAME THING.
It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.
Oh feth that nonsense. People are dying everywhere, every day. Protests targeted at any race are racist. It's pretty simple.
No, you're being simple. That line of thinking is reductive - I'm sure you wouldn't think that black South Africans protesting against a government controlled by white South Africans was racist, would you? Protest is not always about apportioning blame, it can also be about raising awareness, which I firmly believe this is. Maybe they think white people need to wake up to what's happening to their fellow citizens, and join them in helping to change it. It certainly won't change otherwise.
We disagree in this instance. I've no more to say to you on that, honestly, and you're not convincing me that this instance did anything but racistly assign blame.
Cheers.
I'm not hear to convince you of anything at all, old chum. You asked me why I liked the protest, if I recall correctly.
Pip pip.
No idea what "Pip Pip" means. I do appreciate the personal attack, though. Cheers!
Within the limits set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, authority to use deadly force in the line of duty is granted by state law to state and local lawenforcement agencies. Individual agencies set policies and procedures regarding when and how to use deadly force.[3] When deadly force is used within the prescribed manner, the killing is deemed a justifiable homicide. Some law enforcement agencies routinely investigate all uses of deadly force while others investigate only cases involving extenuating circumstances. Other causes of death to suspects include accidents and police brutality. When the circumstances surrounding a death are questionable, a state and/or federal agency may investigate.[4]
Through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, specifically Section 210402, the US Congress mandated the Attorney General to collect data on the use of excessive force by police and to publish an annual report from the data.[5] Two national systems collect data which include homicides committed by law enforcement officers in the line of duty. The National Center for Health Statistics maintains the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) which aggregates data from locally filed death certificates. State laws require that death certificates be filed with local registrars, but the certificates do not systematically document whether a killing was legally justified nor whether a law enforcement officer was involved.[6] The FBI maintains the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) which relies on the voluntary participation of state and local law enforcement agencies in submitting reports about crimes.[6] A study of the years 1976 to 1998 found that both national systems underreport justifiable homicides by police officers, but for different reasons.[6] Records in the NVSS did not consistently include documentation of police officer involvement. The UCR database did not receive reports of all applicable incidents. The authors concluded that "reliable estimates of the number of justifiable homicides committed by police officers in the United States do not exist."[6] A study of killings by police from 1999 to 2002 in the Central Florida region found that the national databases included (in Florida) only one-fourth of the number of persons killed by police as reported in the local news media.[7]"Nationally, the percentage of unreported killings by police is probably lower than among agencies in Central Florida..."[8]
This is to say nothing of what wind up being determined as unjustified homicides, which are basically a black box entirely.
I was under the belief that police do have to account for everyone they killed.
You are incorrect in that belief.
If you don't believe me try to go look for the figures. You'll find nothing comprehensive. Any claim one way another about how many people police do or don't kill is strictly speculative because the actual figures do not exist. The reports (we must simply trust they exist), are often held interally to the departments and they're under no obligation to report them publicly or to the federal government.
Actually you are incorrect. They all have to account for kills and even wounds. Most departments have to account fro all shots fired in line of duty.
The issue is different municipalities, counties and states have different reporting requirements and there is no overarching agency collecting the data across the country. And I'm not sure one is needed. LE efforts are pretty local, and many departments with similar problems/environments already liaise with each other. It isn't a Fed responsibility to oversee local LE departments and tax payers don't need to be funding it at the federal level.
It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.
Oh feth that nonsense. People are dying everywhere, every day. Protests targeted at any race are racist. It's pretty simple.
No, you're being simple. That line of thinking is reductive - I'm sure you wouldn't think that black South Africans protesting against a government controlled by white South Africans was racist, would you? Protest is not always about apportioning blame, it can also be about raising awareness, which I firmly believe this is. Maybe they think white people need to wake up to what's happening to their fellow citizens, and join them in helping to change it. It certainly won't change otherwise.
We disagree in this instance. I've no more to say to you on that, honestly, and you're not convincing me that this instance did anything but racistly assign blame.
Cheers.
I'm not hear to convince you of anything at all, old chum. You asked me why I liked the protest, if I recall correctly.
Pip pip.
No idea what "Pip Pip" means. I do appreciate the personal attack, though. Cheers!
'Pip pip' is just a general greeting, like 'cheers'. What personal attack? And if I had have attacked you, why on earth would you appreciate it?
Actually you are incorrect. They all have to account for kills and even wounds. Most departments have to account fro all shots fired in line of duty.
Show me the numbers.
What part of 'there is no agency collecting them' did you have trouble understanding?
Oh. So they aren't publicly available in any meaningful sense? If they're released or not and in what capacity is at the sole discretion of the individual departments without external oversight? Is what what you're saying? That sounds a lot like what I was saying, yet somehow you're calling me incorrect.
A man with a long history of mental illness was shot to death by police, just hours after telling a state-run crisis hotline operator that he planned to commit “suicide by cop.” The operator sent police officers to his home.[
One has to do the research and go form a base line. Each individual deaths, reason for death, race, age, and all that craziness. Be awhile because some are like the example given above
Actually you are incorrect. They all have to account for kills and even wounds. Most departments have to account fro all shots fired in line of duty.
Show me the numbers.
What part of 'there is no agency collecting them' did you have trouble understanding?
Oh. So they aren't publicly available in any meaningful sense? If they're released or not and in what capacity is at the sole discretion of the individual departments without external oversight? Is what what you're saying? That sounds a lot like what I was saying, yet somehow you're calling me incorrect.
You said it was incorrect police had to account for all kills. And you are incorrect. Each department does account for them. Whether the info is nicely collected at the national level for you to peruse or not has zero bearing on whether the departments account for the kills.
Not just Police Departments. Also Federal agencies to.
After being Taser'd by a US Border Inspector, a US citizen who was crossing the border into the US from Mexico on foot, died. Police say Cesena jumped over a counter and attacked a border agent. During the fight, Cesena was Taser'd.
Jihadin wrote: Not just Police Departments. Also Federal agencies to.
After being Taser'd by a US Border Inspector, a US citizen who was crossing the border into the US from Mexico on foot, died. Police say Cesena jumped over a counter and attacked a border agent. During the fight, Cesena was Taser'd.
And even among Fed agencies I don't think there is a consolidated list.
Actually you are incorrect. They all have to account for kills and even wounds. Most departments have to account fro all shots fired in line of duty.
Show me the numbers.
What part of 'there is no agency collecting them' did you have trouble understanding?
Oh. So they aren't publicly available in any meaningful sense? If they're released or not and in what capacity is at the sole discretion of the individual departments without external oversight? Is what what you're saying? That sounds a lot like what I was saying, yet somehow you're calling me incorrect.
You said it was incorrect police had to account for all kills. And you are incorrect. Each department does account for them. Whether the info is nicely collected at the national level for you to peruse or not has zero bearing on whether the departments account for the kills.
Accounting is only accounting if figures can be externally audited verified. "Yo bro. Don't worry we're totally tracking everything we do, and it's totally some number." Is no accounting at all.
For all the public knows their accounting is just cut out picture of Fudgey the Whale pasted on a piece of 8.5x11" paper with "Justifiable Homocides" written at the top in crayon. That's a rather audacious claim on my part, that it can't be proven wrong is a travesty.
And they can all be accounted, at each department. There are PLENTY of things accounted that do not need to be reported to some outside agency let alone at some Federal level. That does not mean there is no accountability.
Each department goes through tires, and each knows how many they go through a year. And yet I am willing to bet you can't find a number of tires used by LE agencies each year.
Chongara wrote: If you reject any notion of unfairness, but accept that they're just trying to be a "bag of dicks" rather than lodging unjustified complaints then the protests are unjustified but possibly effective.
I don't think they're trying to be a bag of dicks. I just think they are a bag of dicks. A big and very racist bag of dicks.
It's quite telling that you would feel it requires 'mental gymnastics' to merely point out that something being similar to a thing does not make it THE EXACT SAME THING.
again, you gloss over the actual point and make up one of your own to attribute to myself.
That PETA, certain religions, and these brunch protestors are all protesting different things, is very apparent, and known to myself,
glad you understand that too.
all three are communicating their issue via yelling at people they have targeted for specific reasons, their methods are very much the same despite your not wanting them to be.
its just the same and just as rude to shout at people having lunch about dead babies, animals, or whatever other thing you might be outraged about as it is to shout about people getting shot.
you are trying to ignore that valid point, and make up excuses for why its ok for group A to do something but not group B to do the same thing. You should check your privilege in this case, as it is showing.
It's quite telling that you would feel it requires 'mental gymnastics' to merely point out that something being similar to a thing does not make it THE EXACT SAME THING.
again, you gloss over the actual point and make up one of your own to attribute to myself.
That PETA, certain religions, and these brunch protestors are all protesting different things, is very apparent, and known to myself,
glad you understand that too.
all three are communicating their issue via yelling at people they have targeted for specific reasons, their methods are very much the same despite your not wanting them to be.
its just the same and just as rude to shout at people having lunch about dead babies, animals, or whatever other thing you might be outraged about as it is to shout about people getting shot.
you are trying to ignore that valid point, and make up excuses for why its ok for group A to do something but not group B to do the same thing. You should check your privilege in this case, as it is showing.
My privilege? I'm not sure what you mean.
And fine, the two things are the same in the same way that cats and dogs are the same because they both have four legs and a tale, feth nuance.
Da Boss wrote: Even when those factors are controlled, the entire justice system can be shown to clearly have a bias against black people. Not to mention various other systems. We all know black people are more likely to get convicted, get a longer and harsher sentence than a white person convicted of a similar crime. Black people are more likely to be sentenced to death.
This makes the system lose legitimacy.
I wouldn't mind having a "conversation" on the penal laws in the states.
Particularly the increase of "for profits" state prisons and incarcerations by non-violent crimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote: I liked the brunch thing, if I'm being honest. I think the reactions of some people on here bear out that it is a good idea.
CptJake wrote: And they can all be accounted, at each department. There are PLENTY of things accounted that do not need to be reported to some outside agency let alone at some Federal level. That does not mean there is no accountability.
Each department goes through tires, and each knows how many they go through a year. And yet I am willing to bet you can't find a number of tires used by LE agencies each year.
Noted. "Number of people killed by the department" on the list of things that nobody outside the department needs to know. Also roughly equivalent to rate of tire usage.
Even if their statistic of "Black killed by police every 28 hrs" was true, that's still less than the amount of blacks killed (by blacks!) in just Chicago last year.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Even if their statistic of "Black killed by police every 28 hrs" was true, that's still less than the amount of blacks killed (by blacks!) in just Chicago last year.
No Protests Whatsoever
Once "Blacks" are an arm of the government this may begin to approach being vaguely the shadow of a relevant thought.
Its better then me saying "Its not true." Here's a link. Go over it. Draw your own conclusion.
You do realise that the link doesn't really support that it isn't true, right?
For example, since 1976, 31 white people have been executed for the murder of a black person, whereas 291 black people were executed for killing white people.
From that page
"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."
- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990
And the current population of Death Row is 41.75% Black.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Even if their statistic of "Black killed by police every 28 hrs" was true, that's still less than the amount of blacks killed (by blacks!) in just Chicago last year.
Its better then me saying "Its not true." Here's a link. Go over it. Draw your own conclusion.
You do realise that the link doesn't really support that it isn't true, right?
For example, since 1976, 31 white people have been executed for the murder of a black person, whereas 291 black people were executed for killing white people.
From that page
"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."
- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990
And the current population of Death Row is 41.75% Black.
I'm not denying or claiming its different. Draw your own conclusion. I provided the substance to someone post on the sentencing of "Death" since we've had this particular discussion how many times now, 20ish plus, and three pages of point;counter point before someone actually starts posting links. I just nipped it in the bud
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Even if their statistic of "Black killed by police every 28 hrs" was true, that's still less than the amount of blacks killed (by blacks!) in just Chicago last year.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Even if their statistic of "Black killed by police every 28 hrs" was true, that's still less than the amount of blacks killed (by blacks!) in just Chicago last year.
But yeah bro good point, never before seen up in here
And here's my question...
Why hasn't this reached on a national scale ala Trayvon Martins, Mike Browns, etc...??
I was the only White guy on graveyard at the hotel I used to work at and once made a comment about how I had read hypertension was one of the leading causes of fatality with Black males. A friend of mine, without missing a beat replied that the leading cause of death for Black males was other Black males with guns.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Even if their statistic of "Black killed by police every 28 hrs" was true, that's still less than the amount of blacks killed (by blacks!) in just Chicago last year.
But yeah bro good point, never before seen up in here
And here's my question...
Why hasn't this reached on a national scale ala Trayvon Martins, Mike Browns, etc...??
I was the only White guy on graveyard at the hotel I used to work at and once made a comment about how I had read hypertension was one of the leading causes of fatality with Black males. A friend of mine, without missing a beat replied that the leading cause of death for Black males was other Black males with guns.
My black friends are like that... with sharp dry, deadpanning sense of humor.
We have many, many black guys vs deaf guys jokes... none of which is dakka-friendly.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Even if their statistic of "Black killed by police every 28 hrs" was true, that's still less than the amount of blacks killed (by blacks!) in just Chicago last year.
But yeah bro good point, never before seen up in here
And here's my question...
Why hasn't this reached on a national scale ala Trayvon Martins, Mike Browns, etc...??
I was the only White guy on graveyard at the hotel I used to work at and once made a comment about how I had read hypertension was one of the leading causes of fatality with Black males. A friend of mine, without missing a beat replied that the leading cause of death for Black males was other Black males with guns.
My black friends are like that... with sharp dry, deadpanning sense of humor.
We have many, many black guys vs deaf guys jokes... none of which is dakka-friendly.
Yep, I had to go testify at the trial of a guy that tried to stick up the hotel desk with three other guys I work with that were in the lobby at the time. We decided to drive to the courthouse together. As we got to the car, a huge Caddy, the owner piped out, "O.K., everybody into the N word mobile".
The trial itself was a spectacle that might be worthy of it's own thread.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Even if their statistic of "Black killed by police every 28 hrs" was true, that's still less than the amount of blacks killed (by blacks!) in just Chicago last year.
But yeah bro good point, never before seen up in here
And here's my question...
Why hasn't this reached on a national scale ala Trayvon Martins, Mike Browns, etc...??
I was the only White guy on graveyard at the hotel I used to work at and once made a comment about how I had read hypertension was one of the leading causes of fatality with Black males. A friend of mine, without missing a beat replied that the leading cause of death for Black males was other Black males with guns.
My black friends are like that... with sharp dry, deadpanning sense of humor.
We have many, many black guys vs deaf guys jokes... none of which is dakka-friendly.
Yep, I myself learned many White guy jokes, which were similar to the Gringo jokes I learned from Latinos I work with. One incident reflecting the dry humor that stands out in my mind is when I had to go testify at the trial of a guy that tried to stick up the hotel desk with three other guys I work with that were in the lobby at the time. We decided to drive to the courthouse together. As we got to the car, a huge Caddy, the owner piped out, "O.K., everybody into the N word mobile".
The trial itself was a spectacle that might be worthy of it's own thread.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Even if their statistic of "Black killed by police every 28 hrs" was true, that's still less than the amount of blacks killed (by blacks!) in just Chicago last year.
Why hasn't this reached on a national scale ala Trayvon Martins, Mike Browns, etc...??
Here's what I feel like just happened.
1.) Someone made a claim that "the blacks never protest black on black crime"
2.) I showed numerous protests over exactly that over the last couple of years
3.) It was rebutted with "well, those don't count because they weren't big enough.
In other words,
Spoiler:
Well played, Ouze.
For the record, I've made the same point as you a few times in the past (I think one was to SlaveToDorkness too) and it was either ignored or forced the relocation of a goalpost. Good luck, though!
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Yeah good point none of those had anything to do with Chicago...he'll one of them was just a parade.
Not your "bro" either.
Oh? Not even the very first URL I linked? This one?
Spoiler:
Cause, I dunno, I think that one might have been Chicago related.
Why the hell are you even humoring him? "Black on Black Crime" couldn't be less relevant to a discussion about the reaction of the black community to fatal police encounters.The whole affair is just so far off point it isn't even worth discussing.
Chongara wrote: Why the hell are you even humoring him? "Black on Black Crime" couldn't be less relevant to a discussion about the reaction of the black community to fatal police encounters.The whole affair is just so far off point it isn't even worth discussing.
Is brunch even still a thing? I always thought it was just something my grandparents did on Sunday because they'd go to the early church service and when service was over it was too late for breakfast but still too early for lunch. Really never saw it as a wealthy privilege thing as we certainly didn't have money. Maybe I'm not white enough, although that's unlikely as I'm blonde haired, blue eyes swedish/german with the skin complexion of milk. I'm so white I'm almost see through
To me brunch has always been either too busy for breakfast or a slackers breakfast for people who don't get up early enough. I rarely have either as I work nights and don't get up until noon so my breakfast is lunch food.
I'm curious how many of the protesters had to take off work to go to brunch places? For protesters citing "privilege to leisure" they seem to have really open schedules and no pressing commitments on the whole, like jobs and such.
I'm curious how many of the protesters had to take off work to go to brunch places? For protesters citing "privilege to leisure" they seem to have really open schedules and no pressing commitments on the whole, like jobs and such.
Why do you think that of the protesters but not those other people eating brunch in the cafes?
I'm curious how many of the protesters had to take off work to go to brunch places? For protesters citing "privilege to leisure" they seem to have really open schedules and no pressing commitments on the whole, like jobs and such.
Why do you think that of the protesters but not those other people eating brunch in the cafes?
From article
“People who have money and privilege have the leisure to brunch,” Carrie Leilam Love, media liaison for the group Black Brunch NYC, told The Washington Post in a phone interview. “Other people don’t.”
What I'm finding interesting is the lack of LEO support
They are likely there to eat, how is eating a meal at a specific time somehow viewed elitist or privileged? Meanwhile the protesters are just there to yell at people, and aren't eating. They seem to have a disproportionate amount of free time devoted to protesting/irritating other people. Ferguson for example, how do people have two full months of time to be out protesting everyday? Do they have huge amounts of vacation days? If so I'd like some of those, I don't get paid leave from my job for anything.
Also I fail to see how brunchers are in anyway related to cops and police injustice warranting a hands up don't shoot / black lives matter protest. It's just really dumb and unfocused and smacks of just trying to protest all things whitey.
whembly wrote: Not sure if this is legit, but was the "memo" for the brunch protest:
Spoiler:
Soooo...
I think it's bizarre to do this.
I have to wonder at it's reality. I don't think a "store liaison" would hear much in the way of communication from a manager outside of orders to get the hell out of the place.
Where did you find this?
paulson games wrote: They are likely there to eat, how is eating a meal at a specific time somehow viewed elitist or privileged?
It's elitist and privileged because they're white! Don't you get it:
White = All the things wrong with the world. Not-White = Endless paragons of virtue, love, peace, hugs and friendly unicorns.
Anyone who says that clearly don't know anything about africa.
Not you, You probably do.
Even before the europeans arrived Africa had problems. The Europeans only intensified it.
But I am pretty sure it was an african decision to have an ethic cleansing of anyone that is christian or jewish....
Its clear according to social justice laws, minorities can do no wrong. See those ethnic cleansing in darfur and South Africa clearly are in their right minds.
/sarcasm off.
This is why I rarely use the words always and never. It only leads to strife and assumptions. Which leads to ignorance.
Well the last one was in Oakland and Berkeley, so I'd say San Fran -that Goldwater stronghold-has already felt their awesome presence.
Next stop, Rodeo Drive! Those right wingers are gonna pay!
*Ok to be honest, I'd love to see them come into the lobby downstairs. They could have a die in. I'd respect that. If they did the "Hands up / Dont' shoot" dance I might have to do some jazz hands and join in.
The sad thing is, if they stuck to police abuse and militarization in general I'd be in their camp. But when you make it a racial thing and use "punch the cop in the face and take his gun" Brown as your poster boy you lose much support.
I was wondering how many of these protestors know the name of their local sherif or police chief, and how many of them researched the candidates and then voted in the elections for those positions (or for the city counsel types who appoint them if the head LEO position is not elected where they live).
I wonder how many help a candidate of their choice for those run his/her campaign and encourage their folks to vote for the candidate they are supporting.
Albatross wrote: I liked the brunch thing, if I'm being honest. I think the reactions of some people on here bear out that it is a good idea.
Not sure what to make of that post. You basically like racism and think that it's a good idea?
No, I liked the protest. It was non-violent, disruptive and seems to be upsetting American right-wingers. It has everything I like.
It was blatantly racist, most of all. But racism against whites seems to be okay. Privilege etc.
How is it racist? It is a peaceful protest where they talk about statistic in regards to a real issue... You go to places with populations need to hear it. No point to preaching to the choir.
There is a segment of the population who simply 'doesn't give a feth' because it doesn't impact them.
As a white, well-off person with a high paying 9-5 job, I love brunch... Where else can you pay 20$ for 1.50$ of breakfast food and dress up and eat that food at 12:30pm instead of 8AM? It personifies people who have nothing to do because they don't have to work on weekends,don't need a second job to make ends meet and can piss away money. If anything, it is a social economic representation of people who don't work multiple jobs or struggle with disposable income.
There is a high chance that the people who NEED to internalize the information about real problems about the inequities of social economic and race issues in this country are gonna be at 'brunch'. Seems like a shrewd calculation to me. Just how blocking 395 in DC on thanksgiving weekend was totally effective.
Seems like a legit protest to me. Why would someone be upset about it? The truth is people don't want peaceful protests, they want invisible protests which are done out of sight of all so they have virtually no impact. Is having your brunch mildly interrupted really that much of a first world problem to get upset about?
How is it racist? It is a peaceful protest where they talk about statistic in regards to a real issue... You go to places with populations need to hear it. No point to preaching to the choir.
It is an action that specifically aimed at discomforting white people. Not racist?
As a white, well-off person with a high paying 9-5 job, I love brunch... Where else can you pay 20$ for 1.50$ of breakfast food and dress up and eat that food at 12:30pm instead of 8AM? It personifies people who have nothing to do because they don't have to work on weekends,don't need a second job to make ends meet and can piss away money. If anything, it is a social economic representation of people who don't work multiple jobs or struggle with disposable income.
Wow. Didn't realize I was part of this high class white aristocracy because I have a job I work Monday - Friday for 50 hours and get brunch with my family after mass on Sunday. SWEET!
How is it racist? It is a peaceful protest where they talk about statistic in regards to a real issue... You go to places with populations need to hear it. No point to preaching to the choir.
It is an action that specifically aimed at discomforting white people. Not racist?
It's not aimed at discomforting people. Discomforting people is the means, not the ends.
Brunch could just as easily be for people on welfare without a job that don't get up until 10 am, have a leisurely meal and arrive back home in time to hit the mailbox for their check.
How is it racist? It is a peaceful protest where they talk about statistic in regards to a real issue... You go to places with populations need to hear it. No point to preaching to the choir.
It is an action that specifically aimed at discomforting white people. Not racist?
So were the sit-ins when segregation was in effect. But, as previously mentioned, discomforting is the means not the end.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Brunch could just as easily be for people on welfare without a job that don't get up until 10 am, have a leisurely meal and arrive back home in time to hit the mailbox for their check.
Except it isn't... There is a difference between hitting a diner for an 11:30 breakfast and brunch. Usually to the tune of 20$ meals and alcohol being served and a smattering of tablecloths and sportcoats, not paper napkins and sweatpants.
Seems like it is working perfectly as a protest. The real question is: Why would facts which point out problems with institutionalized violence and economic inequity make you uncomfortable? Unless you want to deny they exist or are part of the population which gets an advantage out of the way the system works right now?
How is it racist? It is a peaceful protest where they talk about statistic in regards to a real issue... You go to places with populations need to hear it. No point to preaching to the choir.
It is an action that specifically aimed at discomforting white people. Not racist?
So were the sit-ins when segregation was in effect. But, as previously mentioned, discomforting is the means not the end.
Seriously... I suppose people advocating for civil rights 50 years ago were also racist by daring to inconvenience white people?
According to myself. According to who is the aim just to discomfort people?
According to the act itself. Purposefully discomforting people who are not involved in anything at all just because of their skin color is racism. Nothing more. It's a method to vent for them and it's misdirected.
So why is this suddenly a racist act where it wasn't before? Just because you don't agree with the protest? Seems a bit ridiculous.
Who said that it wasn't racist before? If you do anything specifically targetted at a certain race, then that's racist. The difference is that, and I cannot believe that I have to explain this, segregation was an active way of oppressing black people whereas in this very case, it's about perceived racism, not racism.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Brunch could just as easily be for people on welfare without a job that don't get up until 10 am, have a leisurely meal and arrive back home in time to hit the mailbox for their check.
Except it isn't... There is a difference between hitting a diner for an 11:30 breakfast and brunch. Usually to the tune of 20$ meals and alcohol being served and a smattering of tablecloths and sportcoats, not paper napkins and sweatpants.
Seems like it is working perfectly as a protest. The real question is: Why would facts which point out problems with institutionalized violence and economic inequity make you uncomfortable? Unless you want to deny they exist or are part of the population which gets an advantage out of the way the system works right now?
Exactly. I don't see how any group of people standing and shouting in a restaurant people are eating at would be uncomfortable. All those diners must all be racists!
Interestingly, the civil rights sit ins usually involved locations that were discriminating. That would mean they would have to go to police stations no?
The Civil Rights sit-ins started at Woolworth stores. Ye know, stores that were actually related to pretty racist "employmentships". People protested against something. Others included lunch counters were black people were not getting served.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wow, The second one is more stupid. Seriously, inconveniencing others who are just having a good time with friends or family.
Yeah, that's how protesting actual gets people to take action. If an issue never impacts you, why would you ever care enough about it to do anything? Once it starts impacting your life, then you will take action.
Granted, sometimes tha action is counter to what the protesters want, but at least you are now involved with the issue; which is better than apathy.
That's the whole premise of protesting. If a protest doesn't disrupt anyone/anything then that protest is a waste of time.
Being pissed at the protestors won't get any help for your issue though. It's like the guys who were blocking interstates in St. Louis. You think the people stuck on the highway for who knows how long, had anything but anger at the protesters?
In Ottawa when the transit drivers went on strike they'd have to have cops protect them because they'd picket at shuttle bus stops and people would throw ice and stuff at them.
Except it isn't... There is a difference between hitting a diner for an 11:30 breakfast and brunch. Usually to the tune of 20$ meals and alcohol being served and a smattering of tablecloths and sportcoats, not paper napkins and sweatpants.
Are we talking $20 for a single person here, or $20 for a couple? I mean, I sweatpants it up on Saturday mornings at Panera all the time with my wife to work (on days when we are 'off' mind you) and we're usually looking at a close to $20 bill. Is it the alcohol?
I'm just really trying to get an understanding on whether or not I'm having the brunch of a privileged whitey, or if I qualify for the plebeian version of brunch.
Also, Civil Rights protesters didn't say "Blacks Only" for their protests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: Why would facts which point out problems with institutionalized violence and economic inequity make you uncomfortable?
Doesn't make me uncomfortable, especially since the "facts" they're spouting have been proven wrong and they still insist on spouting them. It would make me angry or laugh, depending on my mood at the time. I'd probably stand up and chant " Pants Up, Don't Loot!" along with them.
Luckily I'm out working most of the day and don't have time for this idiocy to have an effect.
In Ottawa when the transit drivers went on strike they'd have to have cops protect them because they'd picket at shuttle bus stops and people would throw ice and stuff at them.
I have newfound respect for Ottawites.
"the union staged a strike and a hockey game broke out. The blood! SO MUCH BLOOD!"
Doesn't make me uncomfortable, especially since the "facts" they're spouting have been proven wrong and they still insist on spouting them. It would make me angry or laugh, depending on my mood at the time. I'd probably stand up and chant " Pants Up, Don't Loot!" along with them.
Thats quite right.
I think there are people throwing around these untrue statements just to get a rise out of people.
It only takes one individual (one who was using racial slurs) to screw it up on the brunch thing
The one guy that threaten to break the jaw of the security guy (Security guy did look pretty crusty) who was trying to close the door is another thing.
Dead Cops chant in NY
Protestors chanting "Hit them again" when LEO bikers got hit
I'm with Frazz. I was with them at first and then a some people got stupid
According to myself. According to who is the aim just to discomfort people?
According to the act itself. Purposefully discomforting people who are not involved in anything at all just because of their skin color is racism. Nothing more.
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Nope. If a group of (mostly) black people think that comfortable middle-class (mostly) white people are not paying enough attention to issues affecting their fellow citizens, where's the racism in that?
You only have to look at this thread to see that a significant proportion of middle-class Americans don't really give a gak about the issue, so feth 'em. Disturb their brunch. It's just brunch. If I had been in one of those restaurants I would have joined in, without question. 'It's your fault we kill so many of you' just isn't going to cut it anymore. It's not the whole truth.
'It's your fault we kill so many of you' just isn't going to cut it anymore. It's not the whole truth.
Whats this "we" gak? No one in my family has ever belonged to this mythical race called "police" you refer to. Evidently rich liberals living in democratic enclaves are performing some sort of mass killing.
Note that of the two cops that were assassinated, one was hispanic, and one was first generation Chinese immigrant.
And whats this so many of us thing? Us implies black people only. Concerns about police militarization have been bubbling for some time, for the population at large, and you kill support you have when you make it racial. Sharpton would be proud.
According to myself. According to who is the aim just to discomfort people?
According to the act itself. Purposefully discomforting people who are not involved in anything at all just because of their skin color is racism. Nothing more.
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Nope. If a group of (mostly) black people think that comfortable middle-class (mostly) white people are not paying enough attention to issues affecting their fellow citizens, where's the racism in that?
You only have to look at this thread to see that a significant proportion of middle-class Americans don't really give a gak about the issue, so feth 'em. Disturb their brunch. It's just brunch. If I had been in one of those restaurants I would have joined in, without question. 'It's your fault we kill so many of you' just isn't going to cut it anymore. It's not the whole truth.
Thats like hating someone for not paying attention to you.
If someone doesn't think its a problem don't hate them for not caring.
There are certain things to get mad at. But don't blame a bunch of civilains for not caring
'It's your fault we kill so many of you' just isn't going to cut it anymore. It's not the whole truth.
Whats this "we" gak? No one in my family has ever belonged to this mythical race called "police" you refer to.
Note that of the two cops that were assassinated, one was hispanic, and one was first generation Chinese immigrant.
Note that I am wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt that says 'The Clash' on it.
Are we just noting random things or were you going somewhere with that?
...And by 'we' I meant 'the State', and by extension, the public, who's will it serves.
As a white, well-off person with a high paying 9-5 job, I love brunch... Where else can you pay 20$ for 1.50$ of breakfast food and dress up and eat that food at 12:30pm instead of 8AM? It personifies people who have nothing to do because they don't have to work on weekends,don't need a second job to make ends meet and can piss away money. If anything, it is a social economic representation of people who don't work multiple jobs or struggle with disposable income.
Wow. Didn't realize I was part of this high class white aristocracy because I have a job I work Monday - Friday for 50 hours and get brunch with my family after mass on Sunday. SWEET!
Since When is it wrong to enjoy the fruits of your labor working at a demanding very difficult job?
But the state wasn't in those restaraunts. Rich liberals were.
Again, I'm just fine with rich liberals being inconvenienced at lunch whenever possible, and would enjoy youtube footage for my amusement.
But helping the cause (I guess the cause needs to be defined) not a whit.
It would also be helpful if the protesters supported some sort of actual action to be taken. "Don't shoot us just because we're trying to take your pistol and shoot you with it" is not effective legislation.
And as for your Tshirt-"the Clash?" Respect.
EDIT: In support of my "real legislation proposed" argument this is part of what I had on discussions on the rabid scenery chewing sites, where concern about police overreach is widespread:
*No more "noknock" warrant entries absent murder/battery/orkidnapping in progress. *No SWAT teams for any federal govenrment entity outside of DOJ, Marshals, Secret Service and other specifically defined anticrime units. *No SWAT teams serving warrants except for violent felons. Normal warrants-no SWAT teams. *Elimination of sale of surplus military equipment to the PoPo from the federales. *Elmination of sale of seized properties for benefit of the state (ie can't seize a car with drugs found in it and then sell the car, giving the money to the PoPo or government) *Mandatory implacement of conflict de-escalation technique training for police.
SInce the recent events I'd add: *special prosecutor or at least 3rd party DA (from nearby jurisdiction) or empanelled judiciary review of police shootings (like a 3 judge board of review) of people and dogs. "Following procedure" is not sufficient defense to trump the state's criminal statutes. *mandatory body cams THAT CAN'T BE TURNED OFF.
Thats a start. Quick someone pay me $5,000 for a consulting fee.
Frazzled wrote: But the state wasn't in those restaraunts. Rich liberals were.
Again, I'm just fine with rich liberals being inconvenienced at lunch whenever possible, and would enjoy youtube footage for my amusement.
But helping the cause (I guess the cause needs to be defined) not a whit.
It would also be helpful if the protesters supported some sort of actual action to be taken. "Don't shoot us just because we're trying to take your pistol and shoot you with it" is not effective legislation.
And as for your Tshirt-"the Clash?" Respect.
EDIT: In support of my "real legislation proposed" argument this is part of what I had on discussions on the rabid scenery chewing sites, where concern about police overreach is widespread:
*No more "noknock" warrant entries absent murder/battery/orkidnapping in progress.
*No SWAT teams for any federal govenrment entity outside of DOJ, Marshals, Secret Service and other specifically defined anticrime units.
*No SWAT teams serving warrants except for violent felons. Normal warrants-no SWAT teams.
*Elimination of sale of surplus military equipment to the PoPo from the federales.
*Elmination of sale of seized properties for benefit of the state (ie can't seize a car with drugs found in it and then sell the car, giving the money to the PoPo or government)
*Mandatory implacement of conflict de-escalation technique training for police.
SInce the recent events I'd add:
*special prosecutor or at least 3rd party DA (from nearby jurisdiction) or empanelled judiciary review of police shootings (like a 3 judge board of review) of people and dogs. "Following procedure" is not sufficient defense to trump the state's criminal statutes.
*mandatory body cams THAT CAN'T BE TURNED OFF.
Thats a start. Quick someone pay me $5,000 for a consulting fee.
Frazzled wrote: *No more "noknock" warrant entries absent murder/battery/orkidnapping in progress.
*No SWAT teams for any federal govenrment entity outside of DOJ, Marshals, Secret Service and other specifically defined anticrime units.
*No SWAT teams serving warrants except for violent felons. Normal warrants-no SWAT teams.
*Elimination of sale of surplus military equipment to the PoPo from the federales.
*Elmination of sale of seized properties for benefit of the state (ie can't seize a car with drugs found in it and then sell the car, giving the money to the PoPo or government)
*Mandatory implacement of conflict de-escalation technique training for police.
SInce the recent events I'd add:
*special prosecutor or at least 3rd party DA (from nearby jurisdiction) or empanelled judiciary review of police shootings (like a 3 judge board of review) of people and dogs. "Following procedure" is not sufficient defense to trump the state's criminal statutes.
*mandatory body cams THAT CAN'T BE TURNED OFF.
.
I agree pretty much with everything here. Unfortunately, body cams are sort of meaningless when it turns out you can choke a dude to death and get away with it despite it being videotaped.
I'd go a big further on asset forfeiture, but that's probably worthy of a thread of it's own. I read a story pretty recently that I'll post as a new thread when I get off work.
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.
Are we going to throw definitions at each other now?
If you do anything that specifically targets someone because of his skin color, then that's racist. Period.
Frazzled wrote: *No more "noknock" warrant entries absent murder/battery/orkidnapping in progress.
*No SWAT teams for any federal govenrment entity outside of DOJ, Marshals, Secret Service and other specifically defined anticrime units.
*No SWAT teams serving warrants except for violent felons. Normal warrants-no SWAT teams.
*Elimination of sale of surplus military equipment to the PoPo from the federales.
*Elmination of sale of seized properties for benefit of the state (ie can't seize a car with drugs found in it and then sell the car, giving the money to the PoPo or government)
*Mandatory implacement of conflict de-escalation technique training for police.
SInce the recent events I'd add:
*special prosecutor or at least 3rd party DA (from nearby jurisdiction) or empanelled judiciary review of police shootings (like a 3 judge board of review) of people and dogs. "Following procedure" is not sufficient defense to trump the state's criminal statutes.
*mandatory body cams THAT CAN'T BE TURNED OFF.
.
I agree pretty much with everything here. Unfortunately, body cams are sort of meaningless when it turns out you can choke a dude to death and get away with it despite it being videotaped.
I'd go a big further on asset forfeiture, but that's probably worthy of a thread of it's own. I read a story pretty recently that I'll post as a new thread when I get off work.
Agreed on both. However, body cams provide more evidence, and if reviewed by a 3rd party (to me grand juries are worthless, for many reasons) would lend support to guilt OR innocence. Its just one tool in the box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sooo, who is going to pay for all the body cams and the servers to store all that footage?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sooo, who is going to pay for all the body cams and the servers to store all that footage?
Cameras like that, and those that monitor other professions (truck drivers, for example) do not simply store tens of thousands of hours of footage, right? At most, they purge and refresh on a semi-daily basis.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sooo, who is going to pay for all the body cams and the servers to store all that footage?
Cameras like that, and those that monitor other professions (truck drivers, for example) do not simply store tens of thousands of hours of footage, right? At most, they purge and refresh on a semi-daily basis.
And what if someone comes a year later or even a few days later and tries to say something like "That cop caressed me"
dashcams and wearable versions generally upload to a server somewhere,
storing many terabytes is now a trivial thing really, I can set up about 10 cameras in my house with 24/7 recording that auto archives each day for a few hundred bucks.
I actually think it would save the police/government money as it would make investigations less costly and have other tertiary benefits.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sooo, who is going to pay for all the body cams and the servers to store all that footage?
Cameras like that, and those that monitor other professions (truck drivers, for example) do not simply store tens of thousands of hours of footage, right? At most, they purge and refresh on a semi-daily basis.
The cameras do not store the data locally, nor should they. "I shot a guy, and then oops, I lost the camera" would ensue otherwise.
As a IT professional, I assure you, networked storage is incredibly cheap.
So far as who pays for it, the same people who paid for the police officer's gun, uniform, cruiser, etc. Kind of a weird question HSM.
when a protest says "only blacks allowed" and specifically targets "white supremacist brunches"
yeah, its racially motivated and racist.
this thread would prove that many people can only comprehend racism from one group, but not another.
this group has zero moral high ground over any other group that yells their opinions at people, no better then PETA or westboro and might actually be worse due to racial profiling of victims and participants.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sooo, who is going to pay for all the body cams and the servers to store all that footage?
Same place we fund schools!
Casinos and the Lottery! Wooo Hoo!
But in all seriousness, taxes from selling marijuana would be a great start. Get rid of tons of non-violent offenders in our system while encouraging said non-violent offenders to put money back into the system. Win-Win.
I don't give a flying feth what a protester's pet cause is. Inconveniencing and harassing me as I'm going about my daily life (getting to work, going home, enjoying my lunch etc) is just going to harden my attitude and leave me frustrated and less inclined to give a gak. If they want my support and sympathy on whatever issue they're protesting, they should approach me in a more respectful and reasonable way. Ask politely for a moment of my time, give me a leaflet, direct me to a website, give a speech in a public area (i.e. not in a fething cafe)...
Oh, and INB4 someone calls me a rich middle class white person - I've just today gotten a job working three 12 hour shifts over weekends on a factory assembly line.
Networked storage is cheap. Mobile comms to get the data from the camera to the storage is not. That is a lot of data, and not a lot of LE departments are located where existing infrastructure can move the data.
I guess you could download after shift, but then you run the same risk of device getting lost or broken before a download.
Harping on the pamphlet seems a bit like pretending the KKK represents all white people. Finding a few idiots in a group isn't that tough to do, but holding them up as an example of the whole takes extra effort. I suppose what is important is that we not deal with the serious issues but get caught up arguing about the ephemera.
Besides, who doesn't trust The Conservative Treehouse as a source?
Ahtman wrote: Harping on the pamphlet seems a bit like pretending the KKK represents all white people. Finding a few idiots in a group isn't that tough to do, but holding them up as an example of the whole takes extra effort. I suppose what is important is that we not deal with the serious issues but get caught up arguing about the ephemera.
I don't think anyone's claiming that point in particular. I haven't been. I think it does support the notion that it's racist.
The Importance of Black Spaces for Black People
Anti-Black racism is a violent force that often diminishes the safety of Black people in public spaces. We reclaim our humanity and right to unapologetically hold space in public. Our history of struggle for Black liberation continues and we proudly draw on the tactics of previous Black struggles including slave rebellions, civil disobedience used during the Civil Rights Movement and movement to end apartheid in South Africa. Our focus on the plight of Black people “every 28 hours” is drawn from the work of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement and our call to action is inspired by the struggle of young Black people on the ground everyday in Ferguson, MO. Anti-Black racism is taught and often perpetuated among non-Black people of color, thus we also recognize the importance in creating spaces that uplift Black life and Black voice, while still finding ways to build coalition with our non-Black comrades and allies.
Background
Black Brunch is a form of resistance and a direct action tactic based out of Oakland, CA. Young Black leaders organized Black Brunch in response to the historic violence and unjust crimes committed against Black people in America. Leaders of Black Brunch understand that Black people around the world face many forms of violence, anti-Black racism, and oppression, and thus critical and creative intervention is needed on a number of levels to address these issues. What’s happened in Ferguson and New York is happening in Oakland. There is a war on Black people in America that cannot be ignored and the Black Brunch tactic is one that is committed to interrupting ‘business as usual’ until the war against us has ended. Black Brunch was curated by Black folks all around Oakland and the Bay Area. Some of us are organizers, community members, students, and those who are just genuinely outraged at the injustices Black people are forced to confront daily, in the US. It is our goal that this manual will help black people across the US to carry the weight of their pain to communities and to people who otherwise never have to think or feel for us. The beauty in the Black Brunch tactic is that it is easily replicable and allows for Black folks of all backgrounds, generations, identities etc. to mobilize together and create space for inclusive Black leadership and Black resistance.
#BlackBrunch #BlackLivesMater #BYP100
The Importance of Black Spaces for Black People
Anti-Black racism is a violent force that often diminishes the safety of Black people in public spaces. We reclaim our humanity and right to unapologetically hold space in public. Our history of struggle for Black liberation continues and we proudly draw on the tactics of previous Black struggles including slave rebellions, civil disobedience used during the Civil Rights Movement and movement to end apartheid in South Africa. Our focus on the plight of Black people “every 28 hours” is drawn from the work of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement and our call to action is inspired by the struggle of young Black people on the ground everyday in Ferguson, MO. Anti-Black racism is taught and often perpetuated among non-Black people of color, thus we also recognize the importance in creating spaces that uplift Black life and Black voice, while still finding ways to build coalition with our non-Black comrades and allies.
Background
Black Brunch is a form of resistance and a direct action tactic based out of Oakland, CA. Young Black leaders organized Black Brunch in response to the historic violence and unjust crimes committed against Black people in America. Leaders of Black Brunch understand that Black people around the world face many forms of violence, anti-Black racism, and oppression, and thus critical and creative intervention is needed on a number of levels to address these issues. What’s happened in Ferguson and New York is happening in Oakland. There is a war on Black people in America that cannot be ignored and the Black Brunch tactic is one that is committed to interrupting ‘business as usual’ until the war against us has ended. Black Brunch was curated by Black folks all around Oakland and the Bay Area. Some of us are organizers, community members, students, and those who are just genuinely outraged at the injustices Black people are forced to confront daily, in the US. It is our goal that this manual will help black people across the US to carry the weight of their pain to communities and to people who otherwise never have to think or feel for us. The beauty in the Black Brunch tactic is that it is easily replicable and allows for Black folks of all backgrounds, generations, identities etc. to mobilize together and create space for inclusive Black leadership and Black resistance.
#BlackBrunch #BlackLivesMater #BYP100
Think they need a better approach
They're demanding Blacks Only spaces?
I think we need new protestors. These ones are nuts.
Frazzled wrote: But the state wasn't in those restaraunts. Rich liberals were.
Yeah, but Fraz, those are the people (as are all citizens) whom the state is supposed to serve. And let's face it, the current situation is not going to change until the more comfortable middle class get with the program. And it's not just about stopping cops from killing people; the african-american community needs to fix the problems that cause those deaths too. That's not something that's going to happen without the engagement of society as a whole and that starts with awareness. As with so much, it'll only cross over into the mainstream once white people are onboard.
Again, I'm just fine with rich liberals being inconvenienced at lunch whenever possible, and would enjoy youtube footage for my amusement.
Yep.
But helping the cause (I guess the cause needs to be defined) not a whit.
Yet here we are, talking about the issue. Maybe that's the point. Maybe the solution comes later.
And as for your Tshirt-"the Clash?" Respect.
The Dude Abides.
EDIT: In support of my "real legislation proposed" argument this is part of what I had on discussions on the rabid scenery chewing sites, where concern about police overreach is widespread:
*No more "noknock" warrant entries absent murder/battery/orkidnapping in progress.
*No SWAT teams for any federal govenrment entity outside of DOJ, Marshals, Secret Service and other specifically defined anticrime units.
*No SWAT teams serving warrants except for violent felons. Normal warrants-no SWAT teams.
*Elimination of sale of surplus military equipment to the PoPo from the federales.
*Elmination of sale of seized properties for benefit of the state (ie can't seize a car with drugs found in it and then sell the car, giving the money to the PoPo or government)
*Mandatory implacement of conflict de-escalation technique training for police.
SInce the recent events I'd add:
*special prosecutor or at least 3rd party DA (from nearby jurisdiction) or empanelled judiciary review of police shootings (like a 3 judge board of review) of people and dogs. "Following procedure" is not sufficient defense to trump the state's criminal statutes.
*mandatory body cams THAT CAN'T BE TURNED OFF.
Thats a start. Quick someone pay me $5,000 for a consulting fee.
All sounds fair enough. Apart from the 5 Gs, that is.
Ahtman wrote: Harping on the pamphlet seems a bit like pretending the KKK represents all white people. Finding a few idiots in a group isn't that tough to do, but holding them up as an example of the whole takes extra effort. I suppose what is important is that we not deal with the serious issues but get caught up arguing about the ephemera.
Besides, who doesn't trust The Conservative Treehouse as a source?
The pamphlet was broken up in pages all over twitter... and folks here wanted the whole thing. This is the first one I've seen.
What *I* find hysterical is that in my neck of the woods, it's the religious blacks / old people who does "brunch" here.
I think we need new protestors. These ones are nuts.
This right here is what I am talking about when I say that the pamphlet is over-emphasized. Small groups of idiots shouldn't be treated as representing the whole.
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.
Are we going to throw definitions at each other now?
If you do anything that specifically targets someone because of his skin color, then that's racist. Period.
Nonsense. Recognising and acknowledging race is not racist. The assumed superiority of one's racial position relative to another's is racist. Incidentally, you got your definition from Wikipedia. I suggest you read the article.
I think we need new protestors. These ones are nuts.
This right here is what I am talking about when I say that the pamphlet is over-emphasized. Small groups of idiots shouldn't be treated as representing the whole.
Ahtman... how are those "brunch protestors" any different than those to blocks the freeway, or do "die-in" in various places?
And let's face it, the current situation is not going to change until the more comfortable middle class get with the program. And it's not just about stopping cops from killing people; the african-american community needs to fix the problems that cause those deaths too.
Just when I was going to disagree about those establishments being middle clash, you had to pop in something I agree with. Curses! foiled again!
And in that new found spirit of togetherness I just realized.
What they really need to do is have a flash mob at town hall, all doing the thriller dance with "Hands up! Don't Shoot!" that would be awesome.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sooo, who is going to pay for all the body cams and the servers to store all that footage?
Cameras like that, and those that monitor other professions (truck drivers, for example) do not simply store tens of thousands of hours of footage, right? At most, they purge and refresh on a semi-daily basis.
The cameras do not store the data locally, nor should they. "I shot a guy, and then oops, I lost the camera" would ensue otherwise.
As a IT professional, I assure you, networked storage is incredibly cheap.
So far as who pays for it, the same people who paid for the police officer's gun, uniform, cruiser, etc. Kind of a weird question HSM.
Storage is cheap, but.. it's not trivially cheap. At least when it comes to huge amounts you'd need to store the staggering mountain of data it would generate. Looking at how much data the cameras generate per hour, amazon storage rates and doing some really crappy napkin math with big assumptions about how long cops would be on duty, I came to about $1,000 per year, per cop to keep their video on file with a 1-year roll over period for deleting old data.
I'm making an assumption here that departments wouldn't be starting up their own data centers along with the IT personnel to run them, as this is a huge upfront cost and I imagine not a huge savings over time either.
This is probably the kind of cost something like the NYPD could manage but I'm wondering how smaller departments with tighter budgets and less bargaining power would fair. Seems like they'd need to get some help from the state or federal level, to be honest.
I curious what kind of figures you were assuming, particularly since you're probably a bit more familiar with these kind of logistics than I am.
In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).
I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sooo, who is going to pay for all the body cams and the servers to store all that footage?
Cameras like that, and those that monitor other professions (truck drivers, for example) do not simply store tens of thousands of hours of footage, right? At most, they purge and refresh on a semi-daily basis.
The cameras do not store the data locally, nor should they. "I shot a guy, and then oops, I lost the camera" would ensue otherwise.
As a IT professional, I assure you, networked storage is incredibly cheap.
So far as who pays for it, the same people who paid for the police officer's gun, uniform, cruiser, etc. Kind of a weird question HSM.
Storage is cheap, but.. it's not trivially cheap. At least when it comes to huge amounts you'd need to store the staggering mountain of data it would generate. Looking at how much data the cameras generate per hour, amazon storage rates and doing some really crappy napkin math with big assumptions about how long cops would be on duty, I came to about $1,000 per year, per cop to keep their video on file with a 1-year roll over period for deleting old data.
I'm making an assumption here that departments wouldn't be starting up their own data centers along with the IT personnel to run them, as this is a huge upfront cost and I imagine not a huge savings over time either.
This is probably the kind of cost something like the NYPD could manage but I'm wondering how smaller departments with tighter budgets and less bargaining power would fair. Seems like they'd need to get some help from the state or federal level, to be honest.
I curious what kind of figures you were assuming, particularly since you're probably a bit more familiar with these kind of logistics than I am.
You wouldn't have to. Keep it for 72 hours. If there's an incdent the data is kept, otherwise its written over (or whatever the correct term is). The current body cams keep data for 24 hours IIRC.
whembly wrote: In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).
I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.
Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.
You wouldn't have to. Keep it for 72 hours. If there's an incdent the data is kept, otherwise its written over (or whatever the correct term is).
The current body cams keep data for 24 hours IIRC.
This seems like such a trivially small period, it feels like in many cases the cameras would be little more than symbolic gesture. This is especially true if the data is actually being stored locally, in the camera.
Any really meaningful accountability measure would have to live long enough for complaints to actually surface outside an immediate media frenzy, and it'd have to be stored in some capacity that is out of the officer and his direct supervisors immediate control.
Maybe 1-year is overkill, but I can't imagine anything with a lifetime measured in days being anything more than placebo. Though maybe a placebo would be useful. Something that gives the officers the impression they're being watched, even if the chances of it being relevant to anything that doesn't spark an immediate media frenzy is pretty low. Even gakky people behave better when they think they're being watched.
EDIT: In support of my "real legislation proposed" argument this is part of what I had on discussions on the rabid scenery chewing sites, where concern about police overreach is widespread:
*No more "noknock" warrant entries absent murder/battery/orkidnapping in progress.
*No SWAT teams for any federal govenrment entity outside of DOJ, Marshals, Secret Service and other specifically defined anticrime units.
*No SWAT teams serving warrants except for violent felons. Normal warrants-no SWAT teams.
*Elimination of sale of surplus military equipment to the PoPo from the federales.
*Elmination of sale of seized properties for benefit of the state (ie can't seize a car with drugs found in it and then sell the car, giving the money to the PoPo or government)
*Mandatory implacement of conflict de-escalation technique training for police.
SInce the recent events I'd add:
*special prosecutor or at least 3rd party DA (from nearby jurisdiction) or empanelled judiciary review of police shootings (like a 3 judge board of review) of people and dogs. "Following procedure" is not sufficient defense to trump the state's criminal statutes.
*mandatory body cams THAT CAN'T BE TURNED OFF.
Thats a start. Quick someone pay me $5,000 for a consulting fee.
Seems very reasonable, and should help counteract some of the tension between the general population and police
whembly wrote: In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).
I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.
Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.
I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.
If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.
Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".
You wouldn't have to. Keep it for 72 hours. If there's an incdent the data is kept, otherwise its written over (or whatever the correct term is).
The current body cams keep data for 24 hours IIRC.
This seems like such a trivially small period, it feels like in many cases the cameras would be little more than symbolic gesture. This is especially true if the data is actually being stored locally, in the camera.
Any really meaningful accountability measure would have to live long enough for complaints to actually surface outside an immediate media frenzy, and it'd have to be stored in some capacity that is out of the officer and his direct supervisors immediate control.
Maybe 1-year is overkill, but I can't imagine anything with a lifetime measured in days being anything more than placebo. Though maybe a placebo would be useful. Something that gives the officers the impression they're being watched, even if the chances of it being relevant to anything that doesn't spark an immediate media frenzy is pretty low. Even gakky people behave better when they think they're being watched.
Well a shooting will have occurred and they can hold the data. If the relevant powers don't know a shooting has occurred, they've got bigger problems than data storage.
whembly wrote: In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).
I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.
Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.
I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.
If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.
Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".
Well a shooting will have occurred and they can hold the data. If the relevant powers don't know a shooting has occurred, they've got bigger problems than data storage.
The issue as was covered earlier up thread is that until something stirs the public the "relevant powers" are the officer in question and his immediate supervisors. These are the individuals with the least motivation to treat something as relevant incident and the most motivation to let things slide off the radar. Departments don't have to account for anything in a meaningful fashion. They set their own rules for what's appropriate, how to deal with things that aren't, and they don't have to report to anyone outside the department.
Unless a standard approach is adopted that leaves the data long enough for external scrutiny to come around it's too vulnerable to simple apathy or bias, never mind anything would that would qualify as real attempts at obfuscation.
whembly wrote: In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).
I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.
Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.
I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.
If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.
Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".
I suggested earlier download at end of shift. That does not address the problem some have voiced about the cop being able to break/lose the data before it is downloaded. There seemed to be a desire to NOT store it on the device to avoid all these evil pigs killing innocents just because that is what these unaccountable cops seem to do, and then claiming their camera got broken and lost the data.
And let's face it, the current situation is not going to change until the more comfortable middle class get with the program. And it's not just about stopping cops from killing people; the african-american community needs to fix the problems that cause those deaths too.
Just when I was going to disagree about those establishments being middle clash, you had to pop in something I agree with. Curses! foiled again!
And in that new found spirit of togetherness I just realized.
What they really need to do is have a flash mob at town hall, all doing the thriller dance with "Hands up! Don't Shoot!" that would be awesome.
As long as they first check that it doesn't clash with war veteran medal awards ceremonies.
whembly wrote: In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).
I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.
Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.
I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.
If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.
Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".
I suggested earlier download at end of shift. That does not address the problem some have voiced about the cop being able to break/lose the data before it is downloaded. There seemed to be a desire to NOT store it on the device to avoid all these evil pigs killing innocents just because that is what these unaccountable cops seem to do, and then claiming their camera got broken and lost the data.
I don't think it's possible to have an effective wireless transfer mechanism...
The technologies does exist (see iPhone/Androids)... but it probably isn't practical.
Again... dashboard cams do exist in practice today. I wonder what's the police protocol in that? (off to search google)
CptJake wrote: I suggested earlier download at end of shift. That does not address the problem some have voiced about the cop being able to break/lose the data before it is downloaded. There seemed to be a desire to NOT store it on the device to avoid all these evil pigs killing innocents just because that is what these unaccountable cops seem to do, and then claiming their camera got broken and lost the data.
That is exactly what some cops would do, yes, and it's pretty foolish to pretend otherwise.
In an act of solidarity I wore a Black Lives Matter t-shirt to a Churches Chicken and tried to get some people organized and did a one man die in chanting hands up don't shoot. They apparently disliked it and I got several drinks and orders of food thrown at me and was told in no uncertain terms to GTFO backed with threats of physical violence. Given the overall reaction I didn't dare suggest rallying for black only places like the brunch protesters. With a cause that's supposed to be promoting colorblindness and racial equality wtf was up with that treatment?
whembly wrote: In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).
I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.
Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.
I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.
If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.
Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".
I don't like the idea of officers facing criminal charges for failing to manage their cameras correctly. Disciplinary action maybe, but we shouldn't be treating simple screw-ups like potential acts of bad faith. Most cops on are the level after all it's more likely a lost camera is just a lost camera.
I want accountability, but I don't want to make being cop harder than it already is.
At any rate far more Americans live in urban areas than rural ones. Rural areas present all kinds of special challenges for any public service. I'm not sure universal applicability should be a primary driver in policy development. Wireless transmission would work for areas where 80% or more of Americans live, let the policies that would work there work there. Exempt those working in the boonies and have separate policies that work as best as we can get for them.
Chongara wrote: I don't like the idea of officers facing criminal charges for failing to manage their cameras correctly.
Yeah, I think that was maybe a bridge too far.
Sounds okay to me. If they can't manage a camera right then why can they be trusted with a car and a gun?
I think the download at the end of shift is the best way.
If they're involved in a shooting they will be immediately taken off shift and the data downloaded along with an immediate inquiry into the shooting beginning. If the data from their camera shows any signs of tampering (such as having been turned off or whatever) then they are put under immediate internal affairs investigation and suspended without pay until the investigation is complete. If the internal affairs investigation says they're clean then they are still suspended until the shooting inquiry is over but they will receive pay.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So were the sit-ins when segregation was in effect. But, as previously mentioned, discomforting is the means not the end.
Comparing segregation with the recent, non-racist motivated cases is a pretty far shot.
Fact remains that, in this brunch case, the method of protest is pretty much the same.
So why is this suddenly a racist act where it wasn't before? Just because you don't agree with the protest? Seems a bit ridiculous.
Because the protests in the civil rights era were being held in places where segregation happened so they actually had a purpose and meaning.
These "protests" on the other hand are just pointless and seem to be designed solely to annoy people eating late breakfasts...
Or disrupt a medal ceremony for hundred year old veterans. That man, with his bearing, seriously had more power than the idiots who were there to wreck his day.
I want accountability, but I don't want to make being cop harder than it already is.
Would you mind explaining this one a bit more for me? I find myself on the fence concerning how harshly camera use should be enforced. On the one hand, I believe that if you're going to be a cop, you should be expected to be held to the absolutely highest standards and that if you mess up with the biggest check on your behavior, you should be strictly held responsible. But on the other hand, I also work with people for whom technology is not an easy thing, so I can very much see this as creating a huge learning gap.
What about the privacy of those individuals who are in the background of the video. Do you fine the individual "jay Walking" across the city street or some other minor law infringement. Might as well add camera's all over so there are multiple video's of an altercation, a facial recognition system data base to identify wanted criminals etc etc etc
Have to think beyond video evidence of an altercation. Flick a cigarette butt into the street watching a arrest and a week later receive a fine for littering
Jihadin wrote: What about the privacy of those individuals who are in the background of the video. Do you fine the individual "jay Walking" across the city street or some other minor law infringement. Might as well add camera's all over so there are multiple video's of an altercation, a facial recognition system data base to identify wanted criminals etc etc etc
Have to think beyond video evidence of an altercation. Flick a cigarette butt into the street watching a arrest and a week later receive a fine for littering
Ummm Who cares about jaywalkers.
I jaywalk everyday infront of a police station infact the police do it themselves. I watched two officers jaywalking across a street.
Think of the sudden cash revenues from getting all those silly fines when the facial recognition system kicks in.
Win Win for
town
county
city
district
state
Chongara wrote: I don't like the idea of officers facing criminal charges for failing to manage their cameras correctly.
Yeah, I think that was maybe a bridge too far.
Sounds okay to me. If they can't manage a camera right then why can they be trusted with a car and a gun?
I think the download at the end of shift is the best way.
If they're involved in a shooting they will be immediately taken off shift and the data downloaded along with an immediate inquiry into the shooting beginning. If the data from their camera shows any signs of tampering (such as having been turned off or whatever) then they are put under immediate internal affairs investigation and suspended without pay until the investigation is complete. If the internal affairs investigation says they're clean then they are still suspended until the shooting inquiry is over but they will receive pay.
Just in case you are not aware, every LE agency I know of, from my county sheriff's office and up, automatically investigate each shooting and automatically place the cop involved on suspension (generally with pay) until the investigation is done. I am sure out of the many many LE agencies in the US there are exceptions to this, but I suspect there are not all that many.
And again, local LE is not a federal issue, a one size fits all federally mandated solution should not be what we are going for here.
Chongara wrote: I don't like the idea of officers facing criminal charges for failing to manage their cameras correctly.
Yeah, I think that was maybe a bridge too far.
Sounds okay to me. If they can't manage a camera right then why can they be trusted with a car and a gun?
I think the download at the end of shift is the best way.
If they're involved in a shooting they will be immediately taken off shift and the data downloaded along with an immediate inquiry into the shooting beginning. If the data from their camera shows any signs of tampering (such as having been turned off or whatever) then they are put under immediate internal affairs investigation and suspended without pay until the investigation is complete. If the internal affairs investigation says they're clean then they are still suspended until the shooting inquiry is over but they will receive pay.
I'm sure most departments do all that anyway.
If an officer shoots someone they get pulled from active duty till an investigation is done.
Just in case you are not aware, every LE agency I know of, from my county sheriff's office and up, automatically investigate each shooting and automatically place the cop involved on suspension (generally with pay) until the investigation is done. I am sure out of the many many LE agencies in the US there are exceptions to this, but I suspect there are not all that many.
And again, local LE is not a federal issue, a one size fits all federally mandated solution should not be what we are going for here.
I had thought that was what should happen now, that post was mostly to put forward my idea to discourage tampering with the cameras.
I don't know how many cops would risk suspension without pay, an investigation into their conduct over their whole career, possibly being fired and even criminal charges just so they could beat up/shoot somebody without the camera seeing.
On the other hand, the Ferguson case did show at least one police force not following procedure. They didn't write up an incident report for the shooting until weeks after it had happened and people had issued freedom of information requests for it. Those things are meant to be written within 24 hours of the incident happening, I believe.
The guy who beheaded people for ISIS for the world to see was he himself has been beheaded
On topic
Not going to fly but the NYPD Unions are making a attempt to get that into play. NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests
stanman wrote: In an act of solidarity I wore a Black Lives Matter t-shirt to a Churches Chicken and tried to get some people organized and did a one man die in chanting hands up don't shoot. They apparently disliked it and I got several drinks and orders of food thrown at me and was told in no uncertain terms to GTFO backed with threats of physical violence. Given the overall reaction I didn't dare suggest rallying for black only places like the brunch protesters. With a cause that's supposed to be promoting colorblindness and racial equality wtf was up with that treatment?
Jihadin wrote: Police Unions are trying to push shooting cops (assassination and attempt at assassination) to fall under Hate Crimes.
That seems like a stretch;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview "A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."
Isn't attacking an officer in the line of duty already an aggravating factor
Jihadin wrote: Police Unions are trying to push shooting cops (assassination and attempt at assassination) to fall under Hate Crimes.
That seems like a stretch;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview "A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."
Isn't attacking an officer in the line of duty already an aggravating factor
It is.
Labeling it a Hate crime is definitely not an appropriate course of action. Its already quite illegal to shoot someone, Officer or not.
Police have been targets by unstable individuals and gangs for as long as there have been gangs and cops, this is not knew and I have never known a cop that was unaware of this when they went into the job. So far many police organizations (not the police themselves) seem dead set on doing the stupidest things possible in this situation.
Ahtman wrote: Police have been targets by unstable individuals and gangs for as long as there have been gangs and cops, this is not knew and I have never known a cop that was unaware of this when they went into the job. So far many police organizations (not the police themselves) seem dead set on doing the stupidest things possible in this situation.
Reminds me quite a bit of the current situation with many of the unions out there.
Not going to fly but the NYPD Unions are making a attempt to get that into play. NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests
Groups that protest at funerals:
Westboro Baptist Church
NYPD
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... so some of them want "black only spaces". Yeah. Pretty sure the US once had those, and it ended up with someone having a dream or something?
Who... Who said "black only spaces"? I missed that. I ask because rambling anecdote ahead:
I had a philosophy professor teaching an intro course (and he was filling in, himself normally only doing graduate level courses) some 12 years ago or so who was talking about how civilization as we knew it was ending. He didn't say what would come afterward; he genuinely didn't know. Doomsaying isn't an uncommon theme throughout the ages, but neither is cultural change. The interesting thing is that he forcasted, in an age before the smart phone was a thing, the concept of the fragmentation of interests such that the concept of a geolocated community wouldn't matter due to people wishing to socialize with those who shared their own common beliefs. He made this observation based upon people talking less to each other on the street, not knowing your neighbors, and so on. He saw this divisiveness between people as causing breakdowns in the ability to relate to the guy next to you. I see it to some extent when I go to a bar and everyone is staring at their phones rather than talking to each other. I think they're probably just waiting on their friends to show up, surely though.
Anyway, it might be crap. Probably even is. I don't think he was thinking along racial lines at the time, but, still, it's interesting to see this happen, and along such similar themes. I wish I could hunt the old guy down and chat with him about what he thinks of how things turned out even a few years later just to see how he'd feel about it now.
Ahtman wrote: Police have been targets by unstable individuals and gangs for as long as there have been gangs and cops, this is not knew and I have never known a cop that was unaware of this when they went into the job. So far many police organizations (not the police themselves) seem dead set on doing the stupidest things possible in this situation.
In many states, shooting a cop is already either a higher level crime or a statutory aggravating factor.
Aka murder may get you life, but murdering a cop by statute may put you into the "gets the needle" category.
"Texas, other states are shutting down their executions. We're opening up an express lane."
-Ron White, patron saint of scotch drinkers.
I want accountability, but I don't want to make being cop harder than it already is.
Would you mind explaining this one a bit more for me? I find myself on the fence concerning how harshly camera use should be enforced. On the one hand, I believe that if you're going to be a cop, you should be expected to be held to the absolutely highest standards and that if you mess up with the biggest check on your behavior, you should be strictly held responsible. But on the other hand, I also work with people for whom technology is not an easy thing, so I can very much see this as creating a huge learning gap.
Well, first I should clarify that I'm not really super-duper in the "Cops need Cameras" camp personally. I don't like that there is effectively zero accountability in the LE space, and cameras are one potential tool that might be used to help change that. It's just that times where there is room to find common ground with folks that have mostly different world views are rare, and Frazzled was who made the post that kicked off the camera line of discussion in this thread.
When someone like Frazzled is kind of broadly agreeing that a problem I think exists, actually exists and starts talking potential solutions I don't find repugnant I'm inclined to search the common ground. So that's where I'm coming from in all this. I'm just trying to examine the tool and what potential issues it might have, and how those would be addressed. I'm not really advocating for cop-cams, It's just not something I'd be opposed to and I can see some merit in the idea. It isn't really in the set of top changes I'd put in place if I was like super-king of America or something.
All that said, I think the ideal camera solution would be one that's rather hands off for the cops. He clips it on the same way he does his badge and that's about it. It stores a local copy and transmits wirelessly to a long-term storage solution controlled by a 3rd party, probably a private company but also possibly a federal agency. He shouldn't need to turn it on or know how to service it, if something goes wrong it just starts flashing or beeping or something and the department could set whatever policy works to relieve him in as soon as is practically possible.
Cops without cameras wouldn't be allowed out on duty, but the nitty gritty of how lost cameras and the like can be dealt with by the departments themselves. I don't think there is any need for external agencies to be micro-managing the day-to-day of it. What would be important is that that ultimately the two core rules are enforced from outside. That is someone on the state or federal level has the right to randomly drop in and check that the cameras are in use for anyone out on the street and that same agency (whatever it is) also has the right to audit & verify the data stores at any time.
Ayah I'm sure there are ways to make the camera idea more secure and workable, and again its just one tool for greater accountability on all parties. The technology they are currently using is only been in use about a year and has just now moved from pilot programs. It will progress. Evidently many police who have them for awhile like them because it cuts down on bogus complaints against them.
Am I the only one who remembers Robocop and his camera eyes which were admissable evidence in a court of law?
Jihadin wrote: . NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests
The amazing thing is that if places like the NYPD would have spend the last decade actually only arresting people for real crimes instead of arresting and stopping everybody for everything under their "shattered windows" policy then the situation would likely be completely different today.
Jihadin wrote: . NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests
The amazing thing is that if places like the NYPD would have spend the last decade actually only arresting people for real crimes instead of arresting and stopping everybody for everything under their "shattered windows" policy then the situation would likely be completely different today.
Which really begs the question of what we should consider "real crimes" anyway and how do we enforce them?
Do we start to make the "low level" crimes simple violations and issue tickets like we do with illegal parking? What's the solution to that?
I mean, they have to enforce the law, right? Or do they start to get the discretion to pick and choose what laws they enforce?
Jihadin wrote: . NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests
The amazing thing is that if places like the NYPD would have spend the last decade actually only arresting people for real crimes instead of arresting and stopping everybody for everything under their "shattered windows" policy then the situation would likely be completely different today.
Which really begs the question of what we should consider "real crimes" anyway and how do we enforce them?
Do we start to make the "low level" crimes simple violations and issue tickets like we do with illegal parking? What's the solution to that?
Actually a few places have taken that route and are no longer arresting people for low level crimes and are issuing citations instead.
I mean, they have to enforce the law, right? Or do they start to get the discretion to pick and choose what laws they enforce?
They already have the discretion. Have you or anyone you know ever gotten a warning for anything instead of a ticket? There is your discretion.
The Broken Window Theory is another form of discretion in which police departments focus on what kind of crimes they want to police and which areas they want to police them in.
They already have the discretion. Have you or anyone you know ever gotten a warning for anything instead of a ticket? There is your discretion.
The Broken Window Theory is another form of discretion in which police departments focus on what kind of crimes they want to police and which areas they want to police them in.
Whoops, I think I accidentally cut out a piece of my comment:
The problem, IMO, with the notion of discretion when it comes to enforcing the law is that it opens up huge windows for racism and bias. To me, the job of a police officer when it comes to enforcing the law should be pretty black and white. Was the crime committed, or wasn't it? That's why we have a judicial branch that then interprets and adjudicates. Which of course opens the whole bias conversation again when it comes to sentencing, but I think there are better ways to implement oversight at that level than at the LEO/enforcement level.
Jihadin wrote: . NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests
The amazing thing is that if places like the NYPD would have spend the last decade actually only arresting people for real crimes instead of arresting and stopping everybody for everything under their "shattered windows" policy then the situation would likely be completely different today.
Yes. Crime would be much higher-at pre Guiliani levels. That what the policy was before Guiliani.
It's pretty obviously biased in some areas, but I think it does bring up some good points about what should and shouldn't be arrest-able offenses.
Quite frankly, I think it's silly that so many things can yield a court summons. But then again, it still irritates me that I can't pay a ticket online, or hell, when I get it from the officer who gave it to me via Stripe or something.
Ahtman wrote: Nothing slows crime like treating every criminal like a criminal.
Corrected your typo. If you don't like the laws, change them. Otherwise even poor people have the right to live in areas without graffiti, vandalism, and petty crimes, just like the rich people in their gated communities and high rises.
Nonsense. Recognising and acknowledging race is not racist. The assumed superiority of one's racial position relative to another's is racist.
So you do agree that assuming moral superiority over another race is racist? Glad we finally got that sorted out.
Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.
Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.
Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?
Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.
Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?
#whiteprivilege?
Well, it's not racist but it could be considered cold. Certainly the particular way you've framed it here comes off as rather crass and callous.
Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.
Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?
#whiteprivilege?
Nope, I would argue that it makes you kind of complacent but, then, as a fellow whitey I would also argue that complacency is kind of 'our thing'...
Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.
Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?
#whiteprivilege?
Nope, I would argue that it makes you kind of complacent but, then, as a fellow whitey I would also argue that complacency is kind of 'our thing'...
Why do you think this is a white / black thing? Maybe in your country but we have lots of variations of nature's tanning salon here. AGAIN look at the ethnicity of the two cops who were assassinated.
When the race baiters try to make this a black/white thing they destroy it as an issue.
They already have the discretion. Have you or anyone you know ever gotten a warning for anything instead of a ticket? There is your discretion.
The Broken Window Theory is another form of discretion in which police departments focus on what kind of crimes they want to police and which areas they want to police them in.
Whoops, I think I accidentally cut out a piece of my comment:
The problem, IMO, with the notion of discretion when it comes to enforcing the law is that it opens up huge windows for racism and bias. To me, the job of a police officer when it comes to enforcing the law should be pretty black and white. Was the crime committed, or wasn't it? That's why we have a judicial branch that then interprets and adjudicates. Which of course opens the whole bias conversation again when it comes to sentencing, but I think there are better ways to implement oversight at that level than at the LEO/enforcement level.
Actually... *no*.
The LEO must must be able to use discretion. Otherwise, nothing gets done and we'd effectively be living in a police state.
It's a balancing act... should, the office ticket you always for speeding/tail light outtage? Or, should they, at their discretion, be allowed to let you off with a warning?
Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.
Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?
#whiteprivilege?
Nope, I would argue that it makes you kind of complacent but, then, as a fellow whitey I would also argue that complacency is kind of 'our thing'...
Why do you think this is a white / black thing?
I don't, necessarily. The protestors certainly seem to think it's a black/non-black thing though, or at least the blackbrunchers do. Maybe ask them.
Maybe in your country but we have lots of variations of nature's tanning salon here.
Dude, we have black people here. They are also, disproportionately stopped, searched, arrested and imprisoned, just like your black people.
) than exclusively black people?
