Fox News wrote:By: Craig Wall
POSTED:APR 12 2016 08:49PM CDT
UPDATED:APR 12 2016 10:15PM CDT
There is outrage after Chicago police shot and killed a 16-year-old boy.
In Homan Square on Monday night, police pulled over a car that was connected to an earlier shooting. Police say Pierre Loury jumped out and an officer chased him.
Police say Loury then pointed a weapon at the officer and that is when he was shot. But a witness claims he saw officers "high five" each other after the teen was gunned down.
And now, protesters are demanding justice. A group held a vigil at the scene of the shooting and then marched onto the Eisenhower.
Even though the facts of this case are still far from clear, there are those on the side of Loury who claim this was not a justified shooting, despite what police say that he pointed a gun at an officer, and that the gun was recovered at the scene.
It threatened to turn ugly Tuesday night as protesters loudly and angrily confronted police in front of the station where the officers involved in the chase and shooting work. Police managed to keep order and move the protesters down the street.
Earlier, several hundred people marched down the alley to the spot where Loury was shot and killed as he ran from a police stop a block away.
“We do believe that this individual turned and pointed the handgun at the officer the handgun was recovered at the scene where the young man was shot,” said 1st Deputy Supt. John Escalante.
Police radio transmissions captured the intensity of the moment, and a neighbor facing the alley posted a video on Facebook of the scene shortly after the chaotic moment.
Loury’s mother, overcome with emotion, joined the vigil as supporters chanted against police and in support of Loury.
“They gunned down one of our brothers, they executed him. 16 years old. 16 years old. He should be here right now,” one person said at the vigil.
Police say Loury was a documented gang member. He posted a picture of himself holding a handgun on his Facebook page. People who knew him, though, did not think he would have been carrying a gun Monday night.
This is the kids Facebook profile photo:
Personal opinion? Kid had it coming, everyone knows he did, and I doubt the cops high fived each other after. I'd love to see if one of them was wearing a body cam.
On the flip side: That looks like a Hi-point he's holding. The cop was probably safe from a distance of more than 5 feet
What he's got in the picture looks fake. But stiil, 16 years old and already has prison tats all over his body... damn.
As per usual, I'm going to reserve judgement till the facts are made clear, this kid may look like total scum, but that alone doesn't make it justified.
Armed guy points gun at cops and gets shot. Big surprise. Oh look! He's Black. Let's riot. There are plenty of statistics out there that show that more White kids are shot by police than Black kids.
The BLM movement needs to pick better martyrs.
Yes, there are legitimate claims of police brutality and that needs to be addressed. This is not one of them if the lad did indeed point a firearm at the police.
If Black Lives Matter so much, why don't they try to educate their own that pointing a gun or threatening the police with violence will get you shot? Somehow this message is not getting across.
Police shooting another black teen, most likely. That or typical police violence protests, despite the fact that he had a gun.
Again, I'm all for police body cams, not just for our safety, but for the legal safety of police who actually do their jobs and then the public tries to come back at them.
reds8n wrote: One assumes that -- even if it varies from state to state/whatever -- there's generally laws against 16 years olds getting tats ?
Generally gang members don't give a gak about "the law". I would think whether he is/was old enough to legally have a tattoo is far down on anyone's priority list right now.
There's also laws against running from a police stop and shooting at officers, which he ignored, hence this situation.
Armed gang member in a car linked to an earlier shooting. I wonder why they aren't protesting for the victim who got shot? Oh wait, because we have thousands of blacks murdered every year and they don't seem to give a care about that.
University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.
Professor Johnson’s research further concluded that 112 black men died from both justified and unjustified police-involved killings annually during this same period.
It infuriates me that with such a real crime problem, BLM and similar groups try to mug for cameras while taking resources and focus from a terrible true threat.
All of the Facebook profile photos are sort of a red herring. We can reasonably presume that at the time of the incident, the police were not aware of this teenager posing with firearms on facebook. They're only useful for ex facto character assassination. It's interesting how quick the Chicago PD is to release information when it makes a perp look bad, vs when they are shooting someone who's not a threat walking away, huh?
Anyway, if you point a gun at a cop, you might just get killed, and that's the real moral here.
jmurph wrote: Armed gang member in a car linked to an earlier shooting. I wonder why they aren't protesting for the victim who got shot? Oh wait, because we have thousands of blacks murdered every year and they don't seem to give a care about that.
University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.
Professor Johnson’s research further concluded that 112 black men died from both justified and unjustified police-involved killings annually during this same period.
It infuriates me that with such a real crime problem, BLM and similar groups try to mug for cameras while taking resources and focus from a terrible true threat.
Huh. It's weird that they expect the police to kill black people less than criminal gangs. I really don't understand their priorities in trying to get the people that uphold the law to kill fewer black people. I wonder why that is?
I suppose they should just go and protest outside the policegang station and convince the law-abiding gang members to shoot fewer black people when they're arresting them in their police gang cars.
I mean, the government *is* directly in control of all the local gangs, and there is a clear chain of command from elected officials to the policegang person on the street, so protests will definitely stop all of those gang shootings.
Even though the facts of this case are still far from clear, there are those on the side of Loury who claim this was not a justified shooting, despite what police say that he pointed a gun at an officer, and that the gun was recovered at the scene.
Normally, the word of a police man and a gun recovered from the crime scene would be enough to quell any doubts, but I still feel uneasy.
As the years go by, and I hear more and more about police incompetence and miscarriages of justice, I find it increasingly hard to believe anything the police say.
Not long ago, in my neck of the woods, a man died in police custody. The Police have offered FOUR different versions of what happened, and still the inquiry is on going...
But of course it's probably not his fault, he's only 16, poor little guy...
Well, yes, young people are indeed considered to be less legally responsible for what they do and what happens to them. This is a commonly held view. Teenagers are not fully developed and have significantly worse risk assessment and general wisdom than adults. A child is particularly not responsible for how, when and where they are raised, what opportunities and difficulties they face and how they deal with them without sufficient support.
I don't know the facts of it, but I feel deeply sad inside that a child was running about in social circles that lead to this. It must be a parent's absolute nightmare to have a kid end up pulled into that scene.
Sixteen is a dreadfully young age to feel your only option is to pull a gun on a cop, true or not.
But of course it's probably not his fault, he's only 16, poor little guy...
Well, yes, young people are indeed considered to be less legally responsible for what they do and what happens to them. This is a commonly held view. Teenagers are not fully developed and have significantly worse risk assessment and general wisdom than adults. A child is particularly not responsible for how, when and where they are raised, what opportunities and difficulties they face and how they deal with them without sufficient support.
Even the dumbest fething teenager on earth knows what happens when you point a gun at a cop. Gang members certainly do. It is no surprise that he is now dead, and it is entirely down to his own actions, despite what his supporters would have you believe. He could have just ran, he could have complied with the officer, but he chose to draw a gun. His socio-economic situation did not pull a gun out of his pants and try to murder a police officer.
As the years go by, and I hear more and more about police incompetence and miscarriages of justice, I find it increasingly hard to believe anything the police say.
I'm sorry you feel this way. My feeling is that there are many more that are good than bad, but sadly all you hear about is the bad.
But of course it's probably not his fault, he's only 16, poor little guy...
Well, yes, young people are indeed considered to be less legally responsible for what they do and what happens to them. This is a commonly held view. Teenagers are not fully developed and have significantly worse risk assessment and general wisdom than adults. A child is particularly not responsible for how, when and where they are raised, what opportunities and difficulties they face and how they deal with them without sufficient support.
That is still not an excuse for pointing guns at the police. Especially when 99.999% of teenagers manages not to do that, even if they do other stupid stuff. Even little kids have enough risk assessment to know you should not point guns at police. Pointing a gun at police can not be explained by "it was a teenager". No normal teenager is that stupid.
Having difficulties in life or upbringing is even less of an excuse. Nothing forced him to point that gun at the police, it was his own free will.
A lot of people quick to talk in absolutes and justify a killing when there is a total lack of hard evidence supporting the current story of events and multiple witnesses which directly contradict the 'official story' right now. Makes it hard to armchair sentence a minor to death just because you want to be pro-police.
People seem quick to latch on to versions of events which support their agenda or preconceived biases. If this was a justified shooting, I would hope the police had bodycams to support it. Another reason bodycams should be required.
Considering this is the same group who murdered Laquan McDonald, and the city just settled for 5 mil with his family and murder charges have been filed... I can see why no one in Chicago would believe 'he was trying to shoot me' from an officer there.
I don't know what to think of these incidents anymore. Can't trust the cops, can't trust the protesters because of their kneejerk bias, can't trust the news reporters because they'll flat out lie for ratings.... It's all just agenda-fodder at this point, which is awful.
nkelsch wrote: A lot of people quick to talk in absolutes and justify a killing when there is a total lack of hard evidence supporting the current story of events and multiple witnesses which directly contradict the 'official story' right now. Makes it hard to armchair sentence a minor to death just because you want to be pro-police.
People seem quick to latch on to versions of events which support their agenda or preconceived biases. If this was a justified shooting, I would hope the police had bodycams to support it. Another reason bodycams should be required.
Considering this is the same group who murdered Laquan McDonald, and the city just settled for 5 mil with his family and murder charges have been filed... I can see why no one in Chicago would believe 'he was trying to shoot me' from an officer there.
Considering there have also been several cases where the "witnesses" changed their statement to something completely different later?
Specifically this case of witnesses altering their testimony.
Even the dumbest fething teenager on earth knows what happens when you point a gun at a cop. Gang members certainly do. It is no surprise that he is now dead, and it is entirely down to his own actions, despite what his supporters would have you believe. He could have just ran, he could have complied with the officer, but he chose to draw a gun. His socio-economic situation did not pull a gun out of his pants and try to murder a police officer.
People are generally not hyper-rational when they are, for example, frightened or under severe stress such as they might be if they are, for example, chased by police. Especially not when they're just sixteen years old. His socio-economic situation is precisely what put a gun in his pants in the first place (if he had one) and is precisely the reason the cops were enemies to him. If sufficient support existed to stop people from ending up in gangs and if cops didn't view the areas they patrol as essentially under occupation this kind of thing wouldn't happen. If the US justice system wasn't premised upon brutality, if segments of the population weren't abandoned or actively abused by the authorities, if neighbourhoods weren't left to rot then we wouldn't be having these kinds of problems.
Believing that this is an issue of personal responsibility is, put at its most charitable, naive.
Mr. Burning wrote: Are police Unions for or against BodyCams? You would think they would be all over them considering how policing has been pushed into the public eye.
Depends on the agency. Generally bodycams are a good thing, but they also have some unintended consequences (such as people expecting everything to be on video) and definite limitations. A big factor is budget and reliability.
jmurph wrote: Armed gang member in a car linked to an earlier shooting. I wonder why they aren't protesting for the victim who got shot? Oh wait, because we have thousands of blacks murdered every year and they don't seem to give a care about that.
University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.
Professor Johnson’s research further concluded that 112 black men died from both justified and unjustified police-involved killings annually during this same period.
It infuriates me that with such a real crime problem, BLM and similar groups try to mug for cameras while taking resources and focus from a terrible true threat.
Huh. It's weird that they expect the police to kill black people less than criminal gangs. I really don't understand their priorities in trying to get the people that uphold the law to kill fewer black people. I wonder why that is?
I suppose they should just go and protest outside the policegang station and convince the law-abiding gang members to shoot fewer black people when they're arresting them in their police gang cars.
I mean, the government *is* directly in control of all the local gangs, and there is a clear chain of command from elected officials to the policegang person on the street, so protests will definitely stop all of those gang shootings.
Did you even read what I wrote? No one is saying unjustified shootings aren't bad- murder is murder and those committing murder in uniform must be held accountable. But 112 *total* fatalities (including justified) v. almost 4500 for one year? That means all police shootings account for 2% of the black on black homicides alone, and less than a fraction of all black homicides. It is closer to a statistical anomaly than an epidemic. Yet blacks, especially the poor are facing an epidemic of violence that is a very real, not theoretical, threat. They are dying by the thousands *every year*. So where should the priorities lie?
Even the dumbest fething teenager on earth knows what happens when you point a gun at a cop. Gang members certainly do. It is no surprise that he is now dead, and it is entirely down to his own actions, despite what his supporters would have you believe. He could have just ran, he could have complied with the officer, but he chose to draw a gun. His socio-economic situation did not pull a gun out of his pants and try to murder a police officer.
People are generally not hyper-rational when they are, for example, frightened or under severe stress such as they might be if they are, for example, chased by police. Especially not when they're just sixteen years old. His socio-economic situation is precisely what put a gun in his pants in the first place (if he had one) and is precisely the reason the cops were enemies to him. If sufficient support existed to stop people from ending up in gangs and if cops didn't view the areas they patrol as essentially under occupation this kind of thing wouldn't happen. If the US justice system wasn't premised upon brutality, if segments of the population weren't abandoned or actively abused by the authorities, if neighbourhoods weren't left to rot then we wouldn't be having these kinds of problems.
Believing that this is an issue of personal responsibility is, put at its most charitable, naive.
And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.
nkelsch wrote:A lot of people quick to talk in absolutes and justify a killing when there is a total lack of hard evidence supporting the current story of events and multiple witnesses which directly contradict the 'official story' right now.
The witnesses have a total lack of hard evidence to support their side of the story. Given the circumstances and evidence at hand the shooting appears justified. If further evidence comes to light I will absolutely review my opinion.
nkelsch wrote:If this was a justified shooting, I would hope the police had bodycams to support it.
If this was unjustified, I would hope the witnesses have proof to support it. Bodycams would be great, but the problem with them is that the cop is in control of when to turn it on or off. If bodycams are to be a thing, it should be constantly on.
Rosebuddy wrote:Believing that this is an issue of personal responsibility is, put at its most charitable, naive.
Believing that it was anyone else's decision but his to pull a gun on a cop is, put at it's most charitable, naive.
jmurph wrote: Armed gang member in a car linked to an earlier shooting. I wonder why they aren't protesting for the victim who got shot? Oh wait, because we have thousands of blacks murdered every year and they don't seem to give a care about that.
University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.
Professor Johnson’s research further concluded that 112 black men died from both justified and unjustified police-involved killings annually during this same period.
It infuriates me that with such a real crime problem, BLM and similar groups try to mug for cameras while taking resources and focus from a terrible true threat.
Huh. It's weird that they expect the police to kill black people less than criminal gangs. I really don't understand their priorities in trying to get the people that uphold the law to kill fewer black people. I wonder why that is?
I suppose they should just go and protest outside the policegang station and convince the law-abiding gang members to shoot fewer black people when they're arresting them in their police gang cars.
I mean, the government *is* directly in control of all the local gangs, and there is a clear chain of command from elected officials to the policegang person on the street, so protests will definitely stop all of those gang shootings.
Did you even read what I wrote? No one is saying unjustified shootings aren't bad- murder is murder and those committing murder in uniform must be held accountable. But 112 *total* fatalities (including justified) v. almost 4500 for one year? That means all police shootings account for 2% of the black on black homicides alone, and less than a fraction of all black homicides. It is closer to a statistical anomaly than an epidemic. Yet blacks, especially the poor are facing an epidemic of violence that is a very real, not theoretical, threat. They are dying by the thousands *every year*. So where should the priorities lie?
No, I completely ignored what you wrote, which is why I quoted it.
How exactly do you propose they "prioritise" gang violence? Do they go and protest at the gang station? (like I put in my last post) Do they petition the leader of the readily accessible chain of command of the gang? (like I put in my last post)
Or perhaps, they make use of the *thousands* of gang-violence initiatives that are already in place?
But sure, they should protest the people that they have no means of influencing rather than the government organisation that is supposedly accountable to them.
nkelsch wrote: A lot of people quick to talk in absolutes and justify a killing when there is a total lack of hard evidence supporting the current story of events and multiple witnesses which directly contradict the 'official story' right now. Makes it hard to armchair sentence a minor to death just because you want to be pro-police.
People seem quick to latch on to versions of events which support their agenda or preconceived biases. If this was a justified shooting, I would hope the police had bodycams to support it. Another reason bodycams should be required.
Considering this is the same group who murdered Laquan McDonald, and the city just settled for 5 mil with his family and murder charges have been filed... I can see why no one in Chicago would believe 'he was trying to shoot me' from an officer there.
Yes, although the other side is just as quick to start a protest regardless of any "hard evidence". Some go so far as to ignore the "hard evidence" in any case anyway.
Whether no one believes the Police or not, the Police have a right to protect themselves if someone is pointing a weapon at them and not following instructions.
I thought I read somewhere that in Chicago, the Police are no longer responding to calls and the crime rate shot up.
That's the other issue. You can't have it both ways. Vilify the Police, but then expect them to protect and serve at your beckon call.
Jihadin wrote: I think the protest was sparked by the officers supposedly High 5'ing each other.
Extremely unprofessional and very callous if true. Whatever way you look at it, the death of a 16 year old is a tragedy.
Something like that the relief of taking out a shooter is prevalent. Granted it was a 16 year old kid that pointed a weapon at the officer that opted him out. Its a bit of celebratory feeling of "Got him before he got me" feeling.
nkelsch wrote: A lot of people quick to talk in absolutes and justify a killing when there is a total lack of hard evidence supporting the current story of events and multiple witnesses which directly contradict the 'official story' right now. Makes it hard to armchair sentence a minor to death just because you want to be pro-police.
People seem quick to latch on to versions of events which support their agenda or preconceived biases. If this was a justified shooting, I would hope the police had bodycams to support it. Another reason bodycams should be required.
Considering this is the same group who murdered Laquan McDonald, and the city just settled for 5 mil with his family and murder charges have been filed... I can see why no one in Chicago would believe 'he was trying to shoot me' from an officer there.
Yes, although the other side is just as quick to start a protest regardless of any "hard evidence". Some go so far as to ignore the "hard evidence" in any case anyway.
Whether no one believes the Police or not, the Police have a right to protect themselves if someone is pointing a weapon at them and not following instructions.
I thought I read somewhere that in Chicago, the Police are no longer responding to calls and the crime rate shot up.
That's the other issue. You can't have it both ways. Vilify the Police, but then expect them to protect and serve at your beckon call.
I am not sure if that is going on in Chicago, but it is/was in NYC so I wouldn't be surprised Chicago police were behaving in such a manner.
Police can't arbitrarily decide to not do their jobs, either. Otherwise, what are they but another "gang" of armed donkey-caves on the street? No argument that the police nation-wide are in a tough situation, but it is a situation that years of bad policy and "thin blue line" ideology has created so I am not all that sympathetic to their plight, really.
The police need to be as transparent as possible in these situations. They have to earn back the public's trust and until they do, they unfortunately will bear an unfair amount of criticism and suspicion by the communities who they interact with.
This is why I won't accept any job in the Chicago area. At least in the lower portions of the state there's only a few people that get butt-hurt when a thug gets killed. Up there it's like the city's pass time. Might as well get rid of the Cubs stadium.
It strains logic to see how a person climbing a 6-foot spiked metal fence is capable of simultaneously pointing a gun at officers to warrant being shot due to immediate risk of life.
He was shot while on top of the fence, and while falling had his clothes caught on the fence on the other side. This is backed up by the crime scene results and eye witnesses.
And for a gunshot victim who is still alive and breathing at this point in the video... there doesn't seem to be much action or urgency about it. (since he died on the way to the hospital)
If the person DID point a gun at the officer, it wasn't at the time he was actually shot it seems. From the witnesses and the video evidence so far of where and how he ended up, The only way the shooting to be justified would need to be 'trying to subdue someone which is a risk to the community at large by being armed'. Too bad they hung their hat on 'self defense' via actively pointing a gun at them, which doesn't really seem to be supported by the evidence so far, both physical video and eye-witness.
... Unless he decided to perch on top of a spiky metal fence to take his shot at the police... That would be the only way he was pointing a gun at police and being shot while on top of the fence.
Police can't arbitrarily decide to not do their jobs, either. Otherwise, what are they but another "gang" of armed donkey-caves on the street? No argument that the police nation-wide are in a tough situation, but it is a situation that years of bad policy and "thin blue line" ideology has created so I am not all that sympathetic to their plight, really.
The police need to be as transparent as possible in these situations. They have to earn back the public's trust and until they do, they unfortunately will bear an unfair amount of criticism and suspicion by the communities who they interact with.
The Police can decide not to pursue a call based on their safety and call in a higher authority. This can certainly prolong the response time.
Not sure I completely agree with the police needing to be transparent and to "earn" the public's trust. The public's trust should be implicit in the job description. Yes, there are always the bad apples, but to say that because there are a couple of bad ones, they all need to bend over backwards to please the public is a bit of a stretch.
Law Enforcement has an extremely difficult job. It is made even more difficult when there are always people looking over their shoulders and when they are made targets of. There are plenty of examples of the public putting the Police in mortal danger. The public needs to learn to be more respectful and realize that bad things will happen for sure if they break the law and then aren't mindful of what they are asked to do when they are caught.
You pull a knife on a cop and then refuse to put it down when asked to, and lunge at the officer, you better expect to be shot at. If you are aggressively marching toward a policeman with fists clenched and are asked to stand down, and you don't, you can expect to be shot at. Point a firearm at a policeman and refuse to draw down and put the gun on the ground, expect to be shot at. The only way to approach a policeman in those situation and not expect to be shot is with hands up and palms open (among other things). It's not hard.
Do good people get shot even when they are complying?Tragically, yes. They even die. It is certainly a tragedy when that happens. There is no questions about it. I openly concede that point. I propose that that is the very small minority of situations a policeman deals with every day.
It strains logic to see how a person climbing a 6-foot spiked metal fence is capable of simultaneously pointing a gun at officers to warrant being shot due to immediate risk of life.
He was shot while on top of the fence, and while falling had his clothes caught on the fence on the other side. This is backed up by the crime scene results and eye witnesses.
And for a gunshot victim who is still alive and breathing at this point in the video... there doesn't seem to be much action or urgency about it. (since he died on the way to the hospital)
If the person DID point a gun at the officer, it wasn't at the time he was actually shot it seems. From the witnesses and the video evidence so far of where and how he ended up, The only way the shooting to be justified would need to be 'trying to subdue someone which is a risk to the community at large by being armed'. Too bad they hung their hat on 'self defense' via actively pointing a gun at them, which doesn't really seem to be supported by the evidence so far, both physical video and eye-witness.
... Unless he decided to perch on top of a spiky metal fence to take his shot at the police... That would be the only way he was pointing a gun at police and being shot while on top of the fence.
Can you link where you read the crime scene results and the eye witness testimony, please?
You are making many assumptions in your response.
If you are saying that an officer of the law should wait to be shot at before responding to seeing a perp with a gun, I wholeheartedly disagree with that.
Can you link where you read the crime scene results and the eye witness testimony, please?
You are making many assumptions in your response.
If you are saying that an officer of the law should wait to be shot at before responding to seeing a perp with a gun, I wholeheartedly disagree with that.
Google? And too bad the law disagrees with you... Being armed is not a death sentence in America... We have due process.
I provided a video with seconds after visual representation of the crime scene which shows the person on the ground after being on top of the fence and his leg still caught on the fence from the fall. Witnesses and the crime scene show he was shot 'while scaling the fence'
A woman who said she witnessed the shooting told the Tribune the teen was shot as he was scaling a fence.
"They shot him in the air," she said. "His pants leg got caught on the fence and he hit the ground. If he hadn't gotten shot, he would have cleared the fence."
Video of the teen laying on the ground on the other side of the fence with his limp leg caught on the fence.
Like I said... He was shot while scaling the fence, not before, not after. How was he a clear and present danger pointing a gun at police? A lot different that 'stick em up coppers!' and pointing a gun like the internet jury here is presenting.
Google? And too bad the law disagrees with you... Being armed is not a death sentence in America... We have due process.
I didn't say a policeman should shoot when they see a gun. I said "respond". "Stop! Put the gun down! Lie down on your stomach with your hands behind your head!"
You don't comply and start raising your gun? Get ready to be shot at and potentially get killed.
There are plenty of situations in that scenario. The kid could have raised his gun while kicking his leg over the fence. The fact that he was running and pointing a gun at the police is reason enough for them to shoot, no? We will never know the exact circumstances. Unless we see running vid of the whole incident like we did when a poor black man was shot in a park and the policemen tossed a gun on the ground near him as if the gun was his.
The fact is a young man, who had a gun was running from the police, and now he is dead. Tragic, but 100% avoidable. That being said, possibly 100% justified as well.
The curious thing for me is why so many jump on the side of this young criminal? And before you jump on me asking, "how do you know he is was a criminal???" my response would be, what is a 16 year old doing with a gun in public like that? That in and of itself is illegal in the city is it not?
The curious thing for me is why so many jump on the side of this young criminal? And before you jump on me asking, "how do you know he is was a criminal???" my response would be, what is a 16 year old doing with a gun in public like that? That in and of itself is illegal in the city is it not?
Because Chicago PD has a documented history of lies, coverups, falsifying reports and illegally acting with undue aggression towards citizens? Confirmed by both independent city investigations and the DOJ?
Read the lengths officers went to manufacture evidence and flat out LIE in the McDonald Murder and you will see a pattern which makes it very hard to 'trust' the police in Chicago.
While I won't agree with those who say the gun was a plant, I can highly sympathize and understand those who feel the 'he was pointing a gun at me!' claim coming from a Chicago PO is not reassuring due to how often it is used falsely by officers there... And the circumstances of what we know which make such a situation highly improbable.
Being an armed gang member doesn't justify a shooting. Being illegally armed on the street doesn't justify a shooting. Running from police or not complying doesn't justify a shooting.
They need clear and present danger to themselves or others... Or reasonable belief that not subduing them would lead to the harm of the community at large (and in some states, need to be in the middle of a felonious act)
I just don't quite see that here, so I think there is room for justifiable outrage. It is their community, their corrupt police... I am not going to tell them how to feel when I don't have those corrupt police breathing down my neck on a daily basis.
Because Chicago PD has a documented history of lies, coverups, falsifying reports and illegally acting with undue aggression towards citizens? Confirmed by both independent city investigations and the DOJ?
Read the lengths officers went to manufacture evidence and flat out LIE in the McDonald Murder and you will see a pattern which makes it very hard to 'trust' the police in Chicago.
While I won't agree with those who say the gun was a plant, I can highly sympathize and understand those who feel the 'he was pointing a gun at me!' claim coming from a Chicago PO is not reassuring due to how often it is used falsely by officers there... And the circumstances of what we know which make such a situation highly improbable.
This is absolutely a big problem.
What's the solution?
How do we then reconcile and admit when someone is at fault? Should we then assume that a 16 year old with a gun should be allowed on the street?
I would venture to say shut down the PD until you can clean it up. Would that make things better?
Maybe some of those youngster who are proficient with a firearm should consider being public servants and cleaning up their streets.
Given that this was the Chicago PD and they have very recently been caught outright lying about murdering people for no reason, I do not trust that this was a good shoot.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Not sure I completely agree with the police needing to be transparent and to "earn" the public's trust. The public's trust should be implicit in the job description. Yes, there are always the bad apples, but to say that because there are a couple of bad ones, they all need to bend over backwards to please the public is a bit of a stretch.
Let's not cloud this with hyperbole. The public generally isn't looking for police to "bend over backwards" on anything. The public wants police to be fair, arbiters of the law. The public wants police to not abuse their authority. The public wants police to respect the life and property of the citizenry and not arbitrarily shoot or detain individuals for no reason. Or confiscate their property for no reason.
What the public sees instead are instance after instance of the police behaving badly. Are those instances a small percentage of all police actions throughout the country? Of course. But enough bad actions are making headlines that public trust in the police is tanking. The response police shouldn't take is to further exacerbate the distrust by refusing to do their jobs.
Mdlbuildr wrote: The public needs to learn to be more respectful and realize that bad things will happen for sure if they break the law and then aren't mindful of what they are asked to do when they are caught.
Horse gak. The public does not need to be more respectful of public servants. Remember, police work for us. Respect is impossible without absolute transparency and a willingness to abide by the same laws that are enforced on the public. What the public is seeing is that police are not held to the same standards as we are. That is problematic and creates a sense that police are above the law.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Do good people get shot even when they are complying?Tragically, yes. They even die. It is certainly a tragedy when that happens. There is no questions about it. I openly concede that point. I propose that that is the very small minority of situations a policeman deals with every day.
It isn't just police shootings that are destroying public trust. Civil Forfeitures, abuse of authority like those plain clothes jackasses in NYC who harassed a postal worker, and blatant disregard for established police policy coupled with the lack of accountability by police when they break the law. Once police officers start getting charged with murder when they make a bad shoot, or face appropriate charges when they break the law, then and only then can public trust begin to be earned. Until then the situation will just get worse as both "sides" of this debate entrench themselves.
The police, having the power in this situation, need to be held to a higher standard.
The public generally isn't looking for police to "bend over backwards" on anything. The public wants police to be fair, arbiters of the law. The public wants police to not abuse their authority. The public wants police to respect the life and property of the citizenry and not arbitrarily shoot or detain individuals for no reason. Or confiscate their property for no reason.
What the public sees instead are instance after instance of the police behaving badly. Are those instances a small percentage of all police actions throughout the country? Of course. But enough bad actions are making headlines that public trust in the police is tanking. The response police shouldn't take is to further exacerbate the distrust by refusing to do their jobs.
I would venture to say that expecting Police to not intervene with deadly force when being threatened by a criminal running away and waving a gun at them is expecting them to bend over backwards.
Isn't it sad that for all the good they do, everyone seems to focus on the few bad instances? We are all human. Humans are fallible. These high standards you speak of are continuously proven false. Why keep expecting them? Just get rid of the bad seeds and move on with it.
The public generally isn't looking for police to "bend over backwards" on anything. The public wants police to be fair, arbiters of the law. The public wants police to not abuse their authority. The public wants police to respect the life and property of the citizenry and not arbitrarily shoot or detain individuals for no reason. Or confiscate their property for no reason.
What the public sees instead are instance after instance of the police behaving badly. Are those instances a small percentage of all police actions throughout the country? Of course. But enough bad actions are making headlines that public trust in the police is tanking. The response police shouldn't take is to further exacerbate the distrust by refusing to do their jobs.
I would venture to say that expecting Police to not intervene with deadly force when being threatened by a criminal running away and waving a gun at them is expecting them to bend over backwards.
Isn't it sad that for all the good they do, everyone seems to focus on the few bad instances? We are all human. Humans are fallible. These high standards you speak of are continuously proven false. Why keep expecting them? Just get rid of the bad seeds and move on with it.
Because if the police are not held to high standards you cannot get rid of the bad seeds. Just because something is difficult, or maybe even impossible, doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive to achieve it.
The public generally isn't looking for police to "bend over backwards" on anything. The public wants police to be fair, arbiters of the law. The public wants police to not abuse their authority. The public wants police to respect the life and property of the citizenry and not arbitrarily shoot or detain individuals for no reason. Or confiscate their property for no reason.
What the public sees instead are instance after instance of the police behaving badly. Are those instances a small percentage of all police actions throughout the country? Of course. But enough bad actions are making headlines that public trust in the police is tanking. The response police shouldn't take is to further exacerbate the distrust by refusing to do their jobs.
I would venture to say that expecting Police to not intervene with deadly force when being threatened by a criminal running away and waving a gun at them is expecting them to bend over backwards.
Isn't it sad that for all the good they do, everyone seems to focus on the few bad instances? We are all human. Humans are fallible. These high standards you speak of are continuously proven false. Why keep expecting them? Just get rid of the bad seeds and move on with it.
I don't think it is failure to meet the standards that DarkTraveler was upset about, it was failing to be held accountable when those standards are not met. There are too many instances when LEOs do not seem to be held accountable, and that creates a lasting impression which is difficult to overcome. From 'wrong address' no knocks at 0300 resulting in some families door caved in and the dog shot to bad shoots in which the cop isn't even fired let alone prosecuted, it happens. Maybe very rarely in comparison to overall police interactions with the public, but often enough that the idea of Blue Wall protecting even bad cops exists. Those bad seeds you mention seemingly get away with it too often.
Again, it is a perception issue, but it does exist.
Isn't it sad that for all the good they do, everyone seems to focus on the few bad instances? We are all human. Humans are fallible. These high standards you speak of are continuously proven false. Why keep expecting them? Just get rid of the bad seeds and move on with it.
Because as found in CPD, it isn't a few bad seeds, it is institutionalized. It is setting up structures which are training cops to be bad because power corrupts.
If there was really only 'one bad seed' then where did the 8-10 other officers who lied and help falsify reports in the McDonald murder come from? And if they were all also bad seeds, how did they all end up at the same crime scene?
This 'few bad apples' is a farce. We are taking uneducated, unqualified, hot-headed, 19-year olds, and they are being trained by these 'bad seeds' to be the next round of police on the streets, and then they are rewarded internally due to corruption and poor attitudes to support that attitude until people who are daily oppressive cross a line and become murderers. Then the call is to 'stop the murderers' but never to 'stop the oppressive and corrupt'. Just sacrifice the one guy and get back to status quo.
nkelsch wrote: A lot of people quick to talk in absolutes and justify a killing when there is a total lack of hard evidence supporting the current story of events and multiple witnesses which directly contradict the 'official story' right now. Makes it hard to armchair sentence a minor to death just because you want to be pro-police.
People seem quick to latch on to versions of events which support their agenda or preconceived biases. If this was a justified shooting, I would hope the police had bodycams to support it. Another reason bodycams should be required.
Considering this is the same group who murdered Laquan McDonald, and the city just settled for 5 mil with his family and murder charges have been filed... I can see why no one in Chicago would believe 'he was trying to shoot me' from an officer there.
Yes, although the other side is just as quick to start a protest regardless of any "hard evidence". Some go so far as to ignore the "hard evidence" in any case anyway.
Whether no one believes the Police or not, the Police have a right to protect themselves if someone is pointing a weapon at them and not following instructions.
I thought I read somewhere that in Chicago, the Police are no longer responding to calls and the crime rate shot up.
That's the other issue. You can't have it both ways. Vilify the Police, but then expect them to protect and serve at your beckon call.
Ultimately that is not their job. Police are not there to protect and serve. A police officer is there to enforce the laws as directed by their superiors. This is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving. A police officer is well within his rights to stand by and let a murder occur, they are under no obligation or responsibility to protect anyone and they place their own safety first, and the US Supreme Court has affirmed this, as well as their right to lie to people (which is how they get most of their confessions, usually through bluffing people into thinking they know more than they actually do about a particular crime).
As such, there should never be an expectation that police are there to Protect and Serve or that they should be trusted, and the first thing any lawyer (and most cops off the record...sometimes on the record) will tell you is do not talk to the police or allow them to search anything unless directed to by a present attorney and minimize any contact, even casual contact, because their job is to be a professional witness and find things to charge people with.
Protect and Serve is a neat sounding motto, but is not actually what Police are there to do. Some do certainly, but this is going above and beyond, not their core function, and many do not. Nobody should ever be trusting the police nor expecting them to protect or serve.
That is not to say Police are all terrible people, but just always be clear what their job really is and isn't, and understanding that goes a long way to understanding why a lot of incidents happen the way they do.
Ultimately that is not their job. Police are not there to protect and serve. A police officer is there to enforce the laws as directed by their superiors. This is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving. A police officer is well within his rights to stand by and let a murder occur, they are under no obligation or responsibility to protect anyone and they place their own safety first, and the US Supreme Court has affirmed this, as well as their right to lie to people (which is how they get most of their confessions, usually through bluffing people into thinking they know more than they actually do about a particular crime).
As such, there should never be an expectation that police are there to Protect and Serve or that they should be trusted, and the first thing any lawyer (and most cops off the record...sometimes on the record) will tell you is do not talk to the police or allow them to search anything unless directed to by a present attorney and minimize any contact, even casual contact, because their job is to be a professional witness and find things to charge people with.
Protect and Serve is a neat sounding motto, but is not actually what Police are there to do. Some do certainly, but this is going above and beyond, not their core function, and many do not. Nobody should ever be trusting the police nor expecting them to protect or serve.
That is not to say Police are all terrible people, but just always be clear what their job really is and isn't, and understanding that goes a long way to understanding why a lot of incidents happen the way they do.
Interesting. So if what you say is true, which I am taking it to be, they are justified in killing this young man. They felt their lives were in danger. Case closed.
Ultimately that is not their job. Police are not there to protect and serve. A police officer is there to enforce the laws as directed by their superiors. This is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving. A police officer is well within his rights to stand by and let a murder occur, they are under no obligation or responsibility to protect anyone and they place their own safety first, and the US Supreme Court has affirmed this, as well as their right to lie to people (which is how they get most of their confessions, usually through bluffing people into thinking they know more than they actually do about a particular crime).
As such, there should never be an expectation that police are there to Protect and Serve or that they should be trusted, and the first thing any lawyer (and most cops off the record...sometimes on the record) will tell you is do not talk to the police or allow them to search anything unless directed to by a present attorney and minimize any contact, even casual contact, because their job is to be a professional witness and find things to charge people with.
Protect and Serve is a neat sounding motto, but is not actually what Police are there to do. Some do certainly, but this is going above and beyond, not their core function, and many do not. Nobody should ever be trusting the police nor expecting them to protect or serve.
That is not to say Police are all terrible people, but just always be clear what their job really is and isn't, and understanding that goes a long way to understanding why a lot of incidents happen the way they do.
Interesting. So if what you say is true, which I am taking it to be, they are justified in killing this young man. They felt their lives were in danger. Case closed.
I have no idea if it was justified as I havent looked too hard into the details nor do we have all the information, and police have lied (in some cases routinely lie) about the circumstances of shootings before, as do those on the other side. If the Police version of events is correct, then yes, the shoot would be good, at least in my opinion, but thats as far as I'm willing to go on that count personally.
But my point really was that Police aren't there to help anybody, and your natural reaction to Police as they operate in todays world *should* be one of distrust and fear, which is unfortunate, but more to the point, is why relations with police arent always hunky-dory and is why people do things which, in hindsight, seem really stupid because they are acting out of fear and distrust
And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
Rosebuddy wrote: A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
And yet so many more people who are "failed by society" manage to make the individual choice not to be gang-bangers who point guns at policemen.
And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
Blaming society for a kid joining a gang is bs. At no point did society tell him that the only way to survive is to get prison tats on your neck, get involved in shootings, spend the nights running from police while armed, and other things like that.
Not a single one of those kids don't know that those actions are COUNTER to society. Mississippi is the poorest state in the country, yet Chicago's murder rate is 4 times higher then the entire state of Mississippi. Chicago's GDP per capita is nearly $20,000 higher then Mississippi's. Somehow though, because of society not providing him with enough, the gang life was better? Maybe those guys in Mississippi should take note.
The fact is that at one point this kid made the decision that being a menace to society was the life for him. And it put him on the path to his eventual death.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Also, the deceased didn't have a sign around his neck that said I AM A MINOR. he did, however, have a firearm.
I can see how the police could have embraced like that in the context of taking down a threat without being harmed themselves.
Age is not relevant if they are pointing a gun at your face.
And in Chicago... It isn't relevant even when you are NOT pointing a gun in their face, because likely that if you are black, they will shoot you anyways and lie about it based upon findings by the DOJ and admissions by the CPD.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Also, the deceased didn't have a sign around his neck that said I AM A MINOR. he did, however, have a firearm.
I can see how the police could have embraced like that in the context of taking down a threat without being harmed themselves.
Age is not relevant if they are pointing a gun at your face.
And in Chicago... It isn't relevant even when you are NOT pointing a gun in their face, because likely that if you are black, they will shoot you anyways and lie about it based upon findings by the DOJ and admissions by the CPD.
Likely... it's very likely. About 1 million black people in Chicago. Police have shot a grand total of 22 people all of 2015 (no skin color provided). Take note people. .000022% is likely.
Jihadin wrote: Individual made the decision. Stood by his decision. Met the decision eyes wide open
Does a 16 year old ever really have much of an idea about why tbey do anything?
Not trying to hate too muc on the cops here, they likely did make the right call, but lets also not make it out like a 16 year old is playing with a full deck of cards either.
Rosebuddy wrote: A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
And yet so many more people who are "failed by society" manage to make the individual choice not to be gang-bangers who point guns at policemen.
A disproportionate number do however. Its easy to be ethical when surrounded by good role models, have money for things, and have at least some vision of a future. These things absolutley influence peoples actions.
And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
You are making it too big. He was fully able to choose between joining a gang or not, carrying a gun or not and between pointing a gun at a policeman or not (if he actually did that). Material circumstances influence, but don't dictate your decisions.
Likely... it's very likely. About 1 million black people in Chicago. Police have shot a grand total of 22 people all of 2015 (no skin color provided). Take note people. .000022% is likely.
That's exactly right. Amazing how that works, huh? It IS NOT an epidemic and as I said in my first couple of posts, there are more White kids shot by police than Black kids. The BLM movement doesn't care about that at all.
What's likely is that if you flash a gun at a police officer you will get shot.
Gang membership isnt always as voluntary as its made out to be. Want to be able to walk home without getting jumped? Gonna need some allies. Parents were/still are gang members? Chances are you're gonna get beat in. Everone on your block is in the gang? You're probably going to get beat in. For some people, their life doesnt give them any other realistic opportunity.
Dunno what the case was with the kid in this incident, but gangs arent like frats were you go out of the way to make a voluntary choice to join.
Vaktathi wrote: Gang membership isnt always as voluntary as its made out to be. Want to be able to walk home without getting jumped? Gonna need some allies. Parents were/still are gang members? Chances are you're gonna get beat in. Everone on your block is in the gang? You're probably going to get beat in. For some people, their life doesnt give them any other realistic opportunity.
Dunno what the case was with the kid in this incident, but gangs arent like frats were you go out of the way to make a voluntary choice to join.
Point taken.That doesn't mean you have to wave a gun around when confronted by the police, nor does it mean you should expect to live past 18 years old. How is that Police's fault?
Vaktathi wrote: Gang membership isnt always as voluntary as its made out to be. Want to be able to walk home without getting jumped? Gonna need some allies. Parents were/still are gang members? Chances are you're gonna get beat in. Everone on your block is in the gang? You're probably going to get beat in. For some people, their life doesnt give them any other realistic opportunity.
Dunno what the case was with the kid in this incident, but gangs arent like frats were you go out of the way to make a voluntary choice to join.
Point taken.That doesn't mean you have to wave a gun around when confronted by the police, nor does it mean you should expect to live past 18 years old. How is that Police's fault?
In a situation like that which happened here, if the account of the police is to be believed, you are correct in that it isnt their fault. Just want to point out that a lot of this stuff isnt as conscious and voluntarily entered into as some might think, and that poor relations between police and communities have some very real and reasonable basis for that animosity.
Vaktathi wrote: Gang membership isnt always as voluntary as its made out to be. Want to be able to walk home without getting jumped? Gonna need some allies. Parents were/still are gang members? Chances are you're gonna get beat in. Everone on your block is in the gang? You're probably going to get beat in. For some people, their life doesnt give them any other realistic opportunity.
Dunno what the case was with the kid in this incident, but gangs arent like frats were you go out of the way to make a voluntary choice to join.
While I agree with you, point a weapon at an officer-well anyone actually- and they have the right to self defense.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Also, the deceased didn't have a sign around his neck that said I AM A MINOR. he did, however, have a firearm.
I can see how the police could have embraced like that in the context of taking down a threat without being harmed themselves.
Age is not relevant if they are pointing a gun at your face.
I agree 100%, but I suppose my point is that there's not much point about the news wailing that he was only 16, as there was no way the officers could have known he was a minor. All they knew was that he had a gun.
In Illinois there is no hardline legal rule requiring the gun to be locked, loaded, and pointed at the officer before he can fire. 720 ILCS 5/7-1 codifies this with rather flexible, murky wording.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
If the officer is charged this is for the finder of fact to determine.
nkelsch wrote: A lot of people quick to talk in absolutes and justify a killing when there is a total lack of hard evidence supporting the current story of events and multiple witnesses which directly contradict the 'official story' right now. Makes it hard to armchair sentence a minor to death just because you want to be pro-police.
People seem quick to latch on to versions of events which support their agenda or preconceived biases. If this was a justified shooting, I would hope the police had bodycams to support it. Another reason bodycams should be required.
Considering this is the same group who murdered Laquan McDonald, and the city just settled for 5 mil with his family and murder charges have been filed... I can see why no one in Chicago would believe 'he was trying to shoot me' from an officer there.
Yes, although the other side is just as quick to start a protest regardless of any "hard evidence". Some go so far as to ignore the "hard evidence" in any case anyway.
Whether no one believes the Police or not, the Police have a right to protect themselves if someone is pointing a weapon at them and not following instructions.
I thought I read somewhere that in Chicago, the Police are no longer responding to calls and the crime rate shot up.
That's the other issue. You can't have it both ways. Vilify the Police, but then expect them to protect and serve at your beckon call.
I am not sure if that is going on in Chicago, but it is/was in NYC so I wouldn't be surprised Chicago police were behaving in such a manner.
Police can't arbitrarily decide to not do their jobs, either. Otherwise, what are they but another "gang" of armed donkey-caves on the street? No argument that the police nation-wide are in a tough situation, but it is a situation that years of bad policy and "thin blue line" ideology has created so I am not all that sympathetic to their plight, really.
The police need to be as transparent as possible in these situations. They have to earn back the public's trust and until they do, they unfortunately will bear an unfair amount of criticism and suspicion by the communities who they interact with.
That "thin blue line" mentality didn't just materialize out of thin air. It's a bunker mentality that arose in the 1960's. That was when the police were no longer seen as trustworthy community servants, but "pigs", "oinkers", "fascists" and "gestapo". All thanks to black militants (who mostly had their "awakening" in prisons), doped-up hippies, counter-culture cults, and wanna-be "revolutionaries" on college campuses.
Back when my late father was a cop, beginning in the late 70's, public dislike and distrust of the police, a legacy of the turbulent 60's, was at the highest since the western frontier days in late 19th Century (when many famous lawmen were professional killers and criminals themselves). A popular saying in those days was "There is never a cop around when you need one". The same ones who would utter that crap would be the first to scream police brutality, or file complaints, when cops tried to do their jobs. It got to the point where good cops were taking questionable measures (such as so-called "throw down pieces") to protect themselves from media and public crucifixion over mistakes, both large and small.
And there was pressure from above as well. Well-connected and politicos who felt that they (and their friends/relatives) were above laws, like speed limits, DUI laws, motor vehicle regulations, assault, sex crimes, etc. Let a cop run afoul of those types while trying to do their jobs, and they would find themselves in the unemployment line. If a major stink arose with certain groups, such as the black community, even if the cop(s) were in the right, the politicians and political appointees would throw them to the wolves (especially if the media hornets got wind of it, and spinned the hell out of it).
By the time I got into law enforcement back in the mid- 90's, the "us versus them" mentality between the police and the public was firmly cemented in the law enforcement mosaic. Our mantra was strict professionalism and detachment from the citizenry. We were instructed not to accept stuff like free refills,baked good from churches/community groups, or free coffee. Dashcams (thankfully) became the new norm across the United States, and increased use of SWAT teams, who became the primary servers of major warrants (which stirred up distrust among the political right, the traditional supporters of law enforcement), since their specialized training reduced the odds of mistakes that the media/cop haters could use as "ammo" for their next spin. SWAT teams were being used to serve minor arrest warrants in some jurisdictions, which was ridiculous in my view (both then and now). It's overkill to serve a warrant on a deadbeat parent with a team of armored specialists with MP5s and breach gear just because you find out the suspect/perp has a .22 rifle in the house. And I cannot count the number of bs, politically motivated "sensitivity" and "awareness" classes/seminars I had to sit through on both hands and feet, because a minority got more traffic citations than they thought was fair, and filed a complaint/wrote a letter to a local paper.
Things were getting better until recently. By the time I went from police work to corrections, things like community policing, youth programs, interventions, school resource officers, citizen reserve programs, and community outreach was doing much to renew trust between the police and communities they serve. I, for one, was glad to see that distrust and bunker mentality begin to dissolve.
Like with any aspect of daily life, a certain wariness is necessary to ensure your safety, even when dealing with the authorities. The only person who can protect your rights is you. And the law enforcement field, like any other, has a few bad apples that need to be dealt with. But the level of pure hatred and flak that law enforcement in general gets from some quarters nowadays is just plain ridiculous. Even when the officer in a given incident is proven to be the one in the right, people with an ax to grind follow the lead of professional victimhood groups, and cause chaos and generate bad will. That ill will isn't just between police and the public, but also between various "identity" groups among the citizenry, which is what these professional baiters and victimhood movements want.
People need to wisen up and smell the roses instead of horsegak. Groups like #BlackLivesMatter (aka The New Klan With A Tan) who protest the deaths of thugs killed while committing crimes, are nothing more than racists and hucksters themselves. The very same thing they accuse the police of being. But pointing that out makes me (and others) "racist" in the eyes of these hypocrites and their fellow travelers.
The Sheriff in my county has outfitted all his deputies with body cams. Then the new legislation came out the first of this year, effectively pricing body cams out of smaller jurisdictions. Thankfully my county was grandfathered in due to implementation years prior. But one of the city outfits just can't afford them with all the restrictions on how long you have to maintain the data. I've had numerous instances where defendant said his rights were violated, the cops did this or that, and then we turn over the body cam video to his attorney. They change their tune and take the plea deal.
Oldraven you went from the road to corrections? It usually works the other way where I'm at. Most jail staff are happy to get away from the inmates. They get real nasty. I've had video of them peeing on the floor and smearing fecal matter in protest.
Monkey Tamer wrote: The Sheriff in my county has outfitted all his deputies with body cams. Then the new legislation came out the first of this year, effectively pricing body cams out of smaller jurisdictions. Thankfully my county was grandfathered in due to implementation years prior. But one of the city outfits just can't afford them with all the restrictions on how long you have to maintain the data. I've had numerous instances where defendant said his rights were violated, the cops did this or that, and then we turn over the body cam video to his attorney. They change their tune and take the plea deal.
Oldraven you went from the road to corrections? It usually works the other way where I'm at. Most jail staff are happy to get away from the inmates. They get real nasty. I've had video of them peeing on the floor and smearing fecal matter in protest.
I was a city cop in our County seat. Got tired of the politics and internal drama llamas after eleven years. So, I went to work in the State prison system until I took an early retirement due to health.
And OH BOY was that experience a real "thrill"! Here is my happy face I wore when end of shift came around------>
And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
He made the choice to go into a gang
He made he choice to carry a gun
He made the choice to run from the cops(Bad idea, makes you look guilty)
He made the decision to point the gun at the cop.
He could have gone onto school. He could have gone into a trade. He could have made amateur porn, but nope, he made his choice.
As my grandpa said "There comes a time in life you have to stop blaming people for your lot in life, cause, when you meet god in heaven, its just gonna be you and him, no one else"
And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
He made the choice to go into a gang
He made he choice to carry a gun
He made the choice to run from the cops(Bad idea, makes you look guilty)
He made the decision to point the gun at the cop.
He could have gone onto school. He could have gone into a trade. He could have made amateur porn, but nope, he made his choice.
As my grandpa said "There comes a time in life you have to stop blaming people for your lot in life, cause, when you meet god in heaven, its just gonna be you and him, no one else"
But, I thought the whole idea was it was supposed to be you, god, and jesus was there to plead your case. I could be wrong though......
That "thin blue line" mentality didn't just materialize out of thin air. It's a bunker mentality that arose in the 1960's. That was when the police were no longer seen as trustworthy community servants, but "pigs", "oinkers", "fascists" and "gestapo". All thanks to black militants (who mostly had their "awakening" in prisons), doped-up hippies, counter-culture cults, and wanna-be "revolutionaries" on college campuses.
Back when my late father was a cop, beginning in the late 70's, public dislike and distrust of the police, a legacy of the turbulent 60's, was at the highest since the western frontier days in late 19th Century (when many famous lawmen were professional killers and criminals themselves). A popular saying in those days was "There is never a cop around when you need one". The same ones who would utter that crap would be the first to scream police brutality, or file complaints, when cops tried to do their jobs. It got to the point where good cops were taking questionable measures (such as so-called "throw down pieces") to protect themselves from media and public crucifixion over mistakes, both large and small.
And there was pressure from above as well. Well-connected and politicos who felt that they (and their friends/relatives) were above laws, like speed limits, DUI laws, motor vehicle regulations, assault, sex crimes, etc. Let a cop run afoul of those types while trying to do their jobs, and they would find themselves in the unemployment line. If a major stink arose with certain groups, such as the black community, even if the cop(s) were in the right, the politicians and political appointees would throw them to the wolves (especially if the media hornets got wind of it, and spinned the hell out of it).
By the time I got into law enforcement back in the mid- 90's, the "us versus them" mentality between the police and the public was firmly cemented in the law enforcement mosaic. Our mantra was strict professionalism and detachment from the citizenry. We were instructed not to accept stuff like free refills,baked good from churches/community groups, or free coffee. Dashcams (thankfully) became the new norm across the United States, and increased use of SWAT teams, who became the primary servers of major warrants (which stirred up distrust among the political right, the traditional supporters of law enforcement), since their specialized training reduced the odds of mistakes that the media/cop haters could use as "ammo" for their next spin. SWAT teams were being used to serve minor arrest warrants in some jurisdictions, which was ridiculous in my view (both then and now). It's overkill to serve a warrant on a deadbeat parent with a team of armored specialists with MP5s and breach gear just because you find out the suspect/perp has a .22 rifle in the house. And I cannot count the number of bs, politically motivated "sensitivity" and "awareness" classes/seminars I had to sit through on both hands and feet, because a minority got more traffic citations than they thought was fair, and filed a complaint/wrote a letter to a local paper.
Things were getting better until recently. By the time I went from police work to corrections, things like community policing, youth programs, interventions, school resource officers, citizen reserve programs, and community outreach was doing much to renew trust between the police and communities they serve. I, for one, was glad to see that distrust and bunker mentality begin to dissolve.
Like with any aspect of daily life, a certain wariness is necessary to ensure your safety, even when dealing with the authorities. The only person who can protect your rights is you. And the law enforcement field, like any other, has a few bad apples that need to be dealt with. But the level of pure hatred and flak that law enforcement in general gets from some quarters nowadays is just plain ridiculous. Even when the officer in a given incident is proven to be the one in the right, people with an ax to grind follow the lead of professional victimhood groups, and cause chaos and generate bad will. That ill will isn't just between police and the public, but also between various "identity" groups among the citizenry, which is what these professional baiters and victimhood movements want.
People need to wisen up and smell the roses instead of horsegak. Groups like #BlackLivesMatter (aka The New Klan With A Tan) who protest the deaths of thugs killed while committing crimes, are nothing more than racists and hucksters themselves. The very same thing they accuse the police of being. But pointing that out makes me (and others) "racist" in the eyes of these hypocrites and their fellow travelers.
And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
He made the choice to go into a gang
He made he choice to carry a gun
He made the choice to run from the cops(Bad idea, makes you look guilty)
He made the decision to point the gun at the cop.
He could have gone onto school. He could have gone into a trade. He could have made amateur porn, but nope, he made his choice.
As my grandpa said "There comes a time in life you have to stop blaming people for your lot in life, cause, when you meet god in heaven, its just gonna be you and him, no one else"
But, I thought the whole idea was it was supposed to be you, god, and jesus was there to plead your case. I could be wrong though......
Does not God forgive though? If JC say otherwise and God forgives you.....Since to me Christiansanity seem JC is the focal point.,.....I can see God forgiven this guy and calling him Idiot.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Like with any aspect of daily life, a certain wariness is necessary to ensure your safety, even when dealing with the authorities. The only person who can protect your rights is you. And the law enforcement field, like any other, has a few bad apples that need to be dealt with. But the level of pure hatred and flak that law enforcement in general gets from some quarters nowadays is just plain ridiculous. Even when the officer in a given incident is proven to be the one in the right, people with an ax to grind follow the lead of professional victimhood groups, and cause chaos and generate bad will. That ill will isn't just between police and the public, but also between various "identity" groups among the citizenry, which is what these professional baiters and victimhood movements want.
What worries me is when that wariness expressed by a member of the public is misinterpreted as "disrespect" by a police officer and things escalate as a result.
I distrust police as much as anyone else I meet on the street. I know how power corrupts, but I also know how a constant stream of gak from one group or another can influence how a person begins to see all members of a group regardless of an individual's actions. So I really am sympathetic to the narrow line a police officer has to walk in order to deal "fairly" with the public.
But, as your post indicates, I am not entirely sure where the "healing" can begin between the public and the police. The terminology you use to describe certain groups and the media aren't what I'd consider positive and while I won't criticize you for those terminology choices (as I am sure they are a result of your lived experiences with those groups) from an outside perspective (my own) it reads like an obstacle in place of seeing the other side's grievances.
As a member of the public I do legitimately worry about a bull-headed cop who is having a bad day, or just not liking the way I look, upending my life. Which is an odd concern because I am a white male in my 30's with no criminal history. Up until about two years ago I didn't give police much consideration aside from speed traps or donut jokes. But after seeing so much abuse and the "digging in" by a lot of police, especially the police unions, in response to those rogue elements or misdeeds committed by other police, it makes me re-evaluate law enforcement personnel.
If I were a black male I honestly think I'd be gaking it anytime a police officer crossed my path. Perhaps that is me buying into a certain narrative espoused by the media, but there is so much smoke out there now that it is hard not to think the entire country is on fire.
I guess for every "pig" there is a "thug" but how does either side begin to see one another as people? It feels rather melodramatic and "hippie-ish" to even type that, but I think that is the root of this problem. Neither side sees the humanity in the other side. Both sides are certain that the other side has the worst intentions for them. The trust is gone. Maybe it hasn't ever been there which to me is even more disturbing because if that is the case how do we move forward?
Yes. Because if so, there wouldnt ever be good people in power like, ever.
Not even that, but the idea of "Power" is such a nebelous concept that you have to explain what it is and how power corrupts.
What worries me is when that wariness expressed by a member of the public is misinterpreted as "disrespect" by a police officer and things escalate as a result.
I distrust police as much as anyone else I meet on the street. I know how power corrupts, but I also know how a constant stream of gak from one group or another can influence how a person begins to see all members of a group regardless of an individual's actions. So I really am sympathetic to the narrow line a police officer has to walk in order to deal "fairly" with the public.
But, as your post indicates, I am not entirely sure where the "healing" can begin between the public and the police. The terminology you use to describe certain groups and the media aren't what I'd consider positive and while I won't criticize you for those terminology choices (as I am sure they are a result of your lived experiences with those groups) from an outside perspective (my own) it reads like an obstacle in place of seeing the other side's grievances.
As a member of the public I do legitimately worry about a bull-headed cop who is having a bad day, or just not liking the way I look, upending my life. Which is an odd concern because I am a white male in my 30's with no criminal history. Up until about two years ago I didn't give police much consideration aside from speed traps or donut jokes. But after seeing so much abuse and the "digging in" by a lot of police, especially the police unions, in response to those rogue elements or misdeeds committed by other police, it makes me re-evaluate law enforcement personnel.
If I were a black male I honestly think I'd be gaking it anytime a police officer crossed my path. Perhaps that is me buying into a certain narrative espoused by the media, but there is so much smoke out there now that it is hard not to think the entire country is on fire.
I guess for every "pig" there is a "thug" but how does either side begin to see one another as people? It feels rather melodramatic and "hippie-ish" to even type that, but I think that is the root of this problem. Neither side sees the humanity in the other side. Both sides are certain that the other side has the worst intentions for them. The trust is gone. Maybe it hasn't ever been there which to me is even more disturbing because if that is the case how do we move forward?
You do realize that, especially in urban areas, there are minority officers? The media narrative is exactly that- not a real thing. There is no epidemic of officers gunning down citizens of any race or color. Sure there are bad officers and departments with consistent problems, but thinking this country is "on fire" when even justified shootings account for a miniscule fraction of American deaths is exactly why the BLM crap is such a problem. It is blowing a non issue way out of proportion and not focusing on the real problems. Largely for political ends.
Let's say that this shoot is bad. Let's take it a step further and say it's part of Chicago PD's continuing issues. You would think that the demand, then, would be for greater accountability from the Chief of Police, Mayor, City Council, etc. But no, the focus is just that a black "kid" got shot. It becomes howls of racism and a lot of tail chasing is done with no real solutions. Because it's a distraction from the real problems in leadership and systemic power structures. Which serves the political leadership just fine- the party machine rolls on. They don't have to address why despite being "for the poor,for minorities, etc." such groups continue to suffer under the continuing policies and leadership in cities like Chicago.
IF the information given by the police is accurate, and he indeed pointed a gun at them and they shot him down, they were in the right. While I'd feel a high-five is a bit distasteful, there is that whole "holy crap, we survived" thing that can be shared. Could have easily been followed by "gak, we really shouldn't have done a high-five there". Don't know, I wasn't (and I doubt any of you were) there. So we have their side, and we have the side of the witnesses. We don't have the kid's side, because, well, he's dead.
If the kid had no gun though, and they just shot him down because he ran, they should lose their jobs. Gunning him down, THEN high-fiving after killing a fleeing suspect who was unarmed? That isn't forgivable. Again, all depends on when the evidence is in the light.
And were price not an issue, I'd expect all decent cops would welcome body cams-they shouldn't HAVE to prove their innocence, but hey; dirty cops DO exist. And ruin everything for the good ones.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Like with any aspect of daily life, a certain wariness is necessary to ensure your safety, even when dealing with the authorities. The only person who can protect your rights is you. And the law enforcement field, like any other, has a few bad apples that need to be dealt with. But the level of pure hatred and flak that law enforcement in general gets from some quarters nowadays is just plain ridiculous. Even when the officer in a given incident is proven to be the one in the right, people with an ax to grind follow the lead of professional victimhood groups, and cause chaos and generate bad will. That ill will isn't just between police and the public, but also between various "identity" groups among the citizenry, which is what these professional baiters and victimhood movements want.
What worries me is when that wariness expressed by a member of the public is misinterpreted as "disrespect" by a police officer and things escalate as a result.
I distrust police as much as anyone else I meet on the street. I know how power corrupts, but I also know how a constant stream of gak from one group or another can influence how a person begins to see all members of a group regardless of an individual's actions. So I really am sympathetic to the narrow line a police officer has to walk in order to deal "fairly" with the public.
But, as your post indicates, I am not entirely sure where the "healing" can begin between the public and the police. The terminology you use to describe certain groups and the media aren't what I'd consider positive and while I won't criticize you for those terminology choices (as I am sure they are a result of your lived experiences with those groups) from an outside perspective (my own) it reads like an obstacle in place of seeing the other side's grievances.
As a member of the public I do legitimately worry about a bull-headed cop who is having a bad day, or just not liking the way I look, upending my life. Which is an odd concern because I am a white male in my 30's with no criminal history. Up until about two years ago I didn't give police much consideration aside from speed traps or donut jokes. But after seeing so much abuse and the "digging in" by a lot of police, especially the police unions, in response to those rogue elements or misdeeds committed by other police, it makes me re-evaluate law enforcement personnel.
If I were a black male I honestly think I'd be gaking it anytime a police officer crossed my path. Perhaps that is me buying into a certain narrative espoused by the media, but there is so much smoke out there now that it is hard not to think the entire country is on fire.
I guess for every "pig" there is a "thug" but how does either side begin to see one another as people? It feels rather melodramatic and "hippie-ish" to even type that, but I think that is the root of this problem. Neither side sees the humanity in the other side. Both sides are certain that the other side has the worst intentions for them. The trust is gone. Maybe it hasn't ever been there which to me is even more disturbing because if that is the case how do we move forward?
An excellent post. I enjoyed reading it.
I have to say that you make excellent points. The questions you posed are are very good ones and worth answering. I just don't know what the answers are, unfortunately. In my career, as I do now, I tended to see beyond color or ethnicity (despite my use of common, but somewhat labeling, terminology). But some people want to make it hard to do so. And not just among protesters or police, but politicians as well. Politicians, regardless of their ideological bent, are the real enemy. They're the ones who benefit from such upheaval the most.
Alot of people say not seeing color is itself racist because it robs them of their identity and their unique experiances and related to racism.
My response is always "I dont see color, just donkey-caves"
Is all reality, I can see how not seeing color can itself be seen as racist if you look at it through that way.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yes. Because if so, there wouldnt ever be good people in power like, ever.
Not even that, but the idea of "Power" is such a nebelous concept that you have to explain what it is and how power corrupts.
Power doesn't have to corrupt, but it can corrupt. And corruption doesn't have to come from any bad origin, there are plenty of examples of people in power who were corrupted because they wanted to do good things.
The idea that power corrupts is pretty accepted, and there are plenty of studies that seem to suggest that the theory is valid. And it's not a new theory either. The idea that power corrupts, and that you have to hold those in power accountable, is one of the reason we have checks and balances in our Constitution as well as having civilian oversight over our military.
On more local levels it is the driving force behind Freedom of Information laws, civilian oversight boards at police departments, transparency laws for campaign finances, open record laws requiring posted agendas and open access to meetings of public bodies, etc.
Edit: It almost sounds like you changed your major there.
jmurph wrote: There is no epidemic of officers gunning down citizens of any race or color.
Actually, in Chicago... there is EXACTLY that. Violence by police in the form of shooting, tazers of physical results are disproportionately higher against African Americans than anyone else in the city. Even when the statistics show they don't commit crimes at a higher rate than other demographics. So why is 32% of the city's population 74% of the shootings and 76% of the tazers by police?
For perspective, citywide, Chicago is almost evenly split by race among whites(31.7%), blacks (32.9%) and Hispanics (28.9%)
Police Officers Shoot African-Americans At Alarming Rates: Of the 404 shootings between 2008-2015
• 74% or 299 African Americans were hit or killed by police officers, as compared with
• 14% or 55 Hispanics;
• 3% or 33 Whites; and
• 0.25% Asians.
Police Officers Disproportionately Use Tasers Against African-Americans: Of the 1,886 taser discharges by CPD between 2012 and 2015, African-Americans were the target of those discharges at a very high rate:
• 76% or 1,435 African-Americans were shot with tasers;
• 13% or 254 Hispanics;
• 8% or 144 Whites; and
• 0.21% or 4 Asians.
Traffic Stops: In 2013,
• 46% of 100,676 traffic stops involved African-Americans;
• 22% involved Hispanics;
• 27% involved whites.ls Moreover, black and Hispanic drivers were searched far more often even though CPD's own data show that contraband is found more often on white drivers.
other Street Stops: In the summer of 2014, CPD stopped more than
250,000 people-93.6 for every 10,000 City residents—in encounters
not leading to arrests.16 (This figure dwarfs the number of stops by
New York City police, which from 2011-2014, stopped anywhere
between 1.6 and 22.9 people per 10,000.) Of those 250,000 people
stopped by CPD in the summer of 2014,
• 72% were African American;
• 17% were Hispanic;
• 9% were white; and
• 1% were Asian.
There is a documented, explicit epidemic in Chicago that even the Mayor, Head of CPD and the DOJ all acknowledge... Why do you continue to discount it as a false narrative and should be ignored when you literally don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the Chicago situation?
The reasons documented why there are issues in CPD, as found by the statistics and independent investigations:
*We arrived at this point in part because of racism.
*We arrived at this point because of a mentality in CPD that the ends justify the means.
*We arrived at this point because of a failure to make accountability a core value and imperative within CPD.
*We arrived at this point because of a significant underinvestment in human capital.
All 4 of those are disturbing and have extensive evidence to support those findings. So tell me again how this is all 'not a real thing?'
Funny how you think one justified shoot makes all of this 'not real' but when a cop murders someone and the mass coverup falls apart and shows dozens of people involved it is an isolated incident?
Vaktathi wrote: Gang membership isnt always as voluntary as its made out to be. Want to be able to walk home without getting jumped? Gonna need some allies. Parents were/still are gang members? Chances are you're gonna get beat in. Everone on your block is in the gang? You're probably going to get beat in. For some people, their life doesnt give them any other realistic opportunity.
Dunno what the case was with the kid in this incident, but gangs arent like frats were you go out of the way to make a voluntary choice to join.
While I agree with you, point a weapon at an officer-well anyone actually- and they have the right to self defense.
Oh absolutely I just wanted to point out that gang membership isn't as much of a choice as it's sometimes made out to be is all.
jmurph wrote: There is no epidemic of officers gunning down citizens of any race or color.
Actually, in Chicago... there is EXACTLY that. Violence by police in the form of shooting, tazers of physical results are disproportionately higher against African Americans than anyone else in the city. Even when the statistics show they don't commit crimes at a higher rate than other demographics. So why is 32% of the city's population 74% of the shootings and 76% of the tazers by police?
For perspective, citywide, Chicago is almost evenly split by race among whites(31.7%), blacks (32.9%) and Hispanics (28.9%)
Police Officers Shoot African-Americans At Alarming Rates: Of the 404 shootings between 2008-2015
• 74% or 299 African Americans were hit or killed by police officers, as compared with
• 14% or 55 Hispanics;
• 3% or 33 Whites; and
• 0.25% Asians.
Police Officers Disproportionately Use Tasers Against African-Americans: Of the 1,886 taser discharges by CPD between 2012 and 2015, African-Americans were the target of those discharges at a very high rate:
• 76% or 1,435 African-Americans were shot with tasers;
• 13% or 254 Hispanics;
• 8% or 144 Whites; and
• 0.21% or 4 Asians.
Traffic Stops: In 2013,
• 46% of 100,676 traffic stops involved African-Americans;
• 22% involved Hispanics;
• 27% involved whites.ls Moreover, black and Hispanic drivers were searched far more often even though CPD's own data show that contraband is found more often on white drivers.
other Street Stops: In the summer of 2014, CPD stopped more than
250,000 people-93.6 for every 10,000 City residents—in encounters
not leading to arrests.16 (This figure dwarfs the number of stops by
New York City police, which from 2011-2014, stopped anywhere
between 1.6 and 22.9 people per 10,000.) Of those 250,000 people
stopped by CPD in the summer of 2014,
• 72% were African American;
• 17% were Hispanic;
• 9% were white; and
• 1% were Asian.
There is a documented, explicit epidemic in Chicago that even the Mayor, Head of CPD and the DOJ all acknowledge... Why do you continue to discount it as a false narrative and should be ignored when you literally don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the Chicago situation?
The reasons documented why there are issues in CPD, as found by the statistics and independent investigations:
*We arrived at this point in part because of racism.
*We arrived at this point because of a mentality in CPD that the ends justify the means.
*We arrived at this point because of a failure to make accountability a core value and imperative within CPD.
*We arrived at this point because of a significant underinvestment in human capital.
All 4 of those are disturbing and have extensive evidence to support those findings. So tell me again how this is all 'not a real thing?'
Funny how you think one justified shoot makes all of this 'not real' but when a cop murders someone and the mass coverup falls apart and shows dozens of people involved it is an isolated incident?
So the demographic most responsible, and conversely most effected by homicide in Chicago is the recipient of more aggressive policing!?
If the black community is overpoliced like that but still manages to be 75% of the victims of homicides and 70% of the homicide offenders*, despite near racial parity I'd hate to see the death toll if they were under policed.
I admire their tenacity and can do attitude to put up impressive numbers like that despite the extra attention from police! Go for a record year guys!
jmurph wrote: There is no epidemic of officers gunning down citizens of any race or color.
Actually, in Chicago... there is EXACTLY that. Violence by police in the form of shooting, tazers of physical results are disproportionately higher against African Americans than anyone else in the city. Even when the statistics show they don't commit crimes at a higher rate than other demographics. So why is 32% of the city's population 74% of the shootings and 76% of the tazers by police?
What are you talking about? The black population makes up 32% of the city, yet 71% of the murders are committed by black people. So where are you getting this "don't commit crimes at a higher rate than other demographics"?
jmurph wrote: There is no epidemic of officers gunning down citizens of any race or color.
Actually, in Chicago... there is EXACTLY that. Violence by police in the form of shooting, tazers of physical results are disproportionately higher against African Americans than anyone else in the city. Even when the statistics show they don't commit crimes at a higher rate than other demographics. So why is 32% of the city's population 74% of the shootings and 76% of the tazers by police?
What are you talking about? The black population makes up 32% of the city, yet 71% of the murders are committed by black people. So where are you getting this "don't commit crimes at a higher rate than other demographics"?
Unless you want to argue that police departments should be able to execute murderers for their crimes, then the fact that 71% really has no significance on anything. The crime you are being arrested for doesn't impact the actual arrest and officers cannot shoot a murderer anymore than they can shoot a guy being arrested for public intoxication.
Unless you want to argue that police departments should be able to execute murderers for their crimes, then the fact that 71% really has no significance on anything. The crime you are being arrested for doesn't impact the actual arrest and officers cannot shoot a murderer anymore than they can shoot a guy being arrested for public intoxication.
Murders make up less than 1% of the crime in the city, trying to extrapolate murder stats to crime as a whole and then justify disproportionate policing based upon murder rates is disingenuous, and doesn't justify them being the victims of police violence at higher rates.
And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
He made the choice to go into a gang
He made he choice to carry a gun
He made the choice to run from the cops(Bad idea, makes you look guilty)
He made the decision to point the gun at the cop.
He could have gone onto school. He could have gone into a trade. He could have made amateur porn, but nope, he made his choice.
As my grandpa said "There comes a time in life you have to stop blaming people for your lot in life, cause, when you meet god in heaven, its just gonna be you and him, no one else"
But, I thought the whole idea was it was supposed to be you, god, and jesus was there to plead your case. I could be wrong though......
Does not God forgive though? If JC say otherwise and God forgives you.....Since to me Christiansanity seem JC is the focal point.,.....I can see God forgiven this guy and calling him Idiot.
From my understanding of how it works, and I say this as a heathen so I am probably wrong, JC is technically God or at least JC is a part of God. Which makes you wonder, why is the guy running the show arguing with himself?
Unless you want to argue that police departments should be able to execute murderers for their crimes, then the fact that 71% really has no significance on anything. The crime you are being arrested for doesn't impact the actual arrest and officers cannot shoot a murderer anymore than they can shoot a guy being arrested for public intoxication.
Murders make up less than 1% of the crime in the city, trying to extrapolate murder stats to crime as a whole and then justify disproportionate policing based upon murder rates is disingenuous, and doesn't justify them being the victims of police violence at higher rates.
And yet, it was he himself, not the police, not the bad neighourhood, not the gang who pointed a gun at the police (Assuming that story is true, of course. Given previous stories about the US police, I am not so certain) His socio-economic situation did not put a gun in his pants, he did that himself. Of course you can argue that his socio-economic situation led to him making the decision, but it was still he himself who made the decision. He could have chosen otherwise. You can never deflect individual responsibility for your actions.
A 16-year-old failed by society to the point that he ended up in a gang is not a sterling example of the supremacy of individual choice. Sitting here now and saying that he could simply have chosen himself a better lot in life is silly. Yeah, sure, he coulda walked on the moon and memorised Mozart. That sort of thing is mere speculation in the face of the material circumstances of his life.
He made the choice to go into a gang
He made he choice to carry a gun
He made the choice to run from the cops(Bad idea, makes you look guilty)
He made the decision to point the gun at the cop.
He could have gone onto school. He could have gone into a trade. He could have made amateur porn, but nope, he made his choice.
As my grandpa said "There comes a time in life you have to stop blaming people for your lot in life, cause, when you meet god in heaven, its just gonna be you and him, no one else"
But, I thought the whole idea was it was supposed to be you, god, and jesus was there to plead your case. I could be wrong though......
Does not God forgive though? If JC say otherwise and God forgives you.....Since to me Christiansanity seem JC is the focal point.,.....I can see God forgiven this guy and calling him Idiot.
From my understanding of how it works, and I say this as a heathen so I am probably wrong, JC is technically God or at least JC is a part of God. Which makes you wonder, why is the guy running the show arguing with himself?
Makes you really question things.
Here, this triangle should explain it:
God consists of three aspects: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The three aspects are distinct (i.e. they are not each other), but they are also one.
TIL that protesting police violence while being black is like being in what was the nation's largest domestic terrorist organization, responsible for killing thousands of people.
Does not God forgive though? If JC say otherwise and God forgives you.....Since to me Christiansanity seem JC is the focal point.,.....I can see God forgiven this guy and calling him Idiot.
Not Old Testament Dog. He don't around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yes. Because if so, there wouldnt ever be good people in power like, ever.
Not even that, but the idea of "Power" is such a nebelous concept that you have to explain what it is and how power corrupts.
Your statement proves the theory. There are like, no good people in power like ever.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yes. Because if so, there wouldnt ever be good people in power like, ever.
Not even that, but the idea of "Power" is such a nebelous concept that you have to explain what it is and how power corrupts.
Your statement proves the theory. There are like, no good people in power like ever.
Except for Vladimir Vladimirovich of course. He is the best person in the world.
jmurph wrote: There is no epidemic of officers gunning down citizens of any race or color.
Actually, in Chicago... there is EXACTLY that. Violence by police in the form of shooting, tazers of physical results are disproportionately higher against African Americans than anyone else in the city. Even when the statistics show they don't commit crimes at a higher rate than other demographics. So why is 32% of the city's population 74% of the shootings and 76% of the tazers by police?
What are you talking about? The black population makes up 32% of the city, yet 71% of the murders are committed by black people. So where are you getting this "don't commit crimes at a higher rate than other demographics"?
Unless you want to argue that police departments should be able to execute murderers for their crimes, then the fact that 71% really has no significance on anything. The crime you are being arrested for doesn't impact the actual arrest and officers cannot shoot a murderer anymore than they can shoot a guy being arrested for public intoxication.
Umm, sort of. Generally, murders and other violent crimes are going to have a higher risk and are more likely to provoke a fatal response. So in your example, it is much more likely that an officer would be justified in shooting a murderer say during the commission of the offense than a PI during the commission of the offense. Likewise, most jurisdictions recognize some form of fleeing felon doctrine, which would not apply to the PI.
As to Chicago, perhaps I should have clarified- there is no national epidemic. Individual departments have issue and those certainly need to be addressed. At the local level. As I pointed out, Chicago has been dominated by the same political party for decades, the same party that nominally champions the poor, minorities, etc. yet remains mired in these issues. Groups like BLM, rather than attacking the institutional problems there and those who have the power to fix it (the mayor, city council, etc.) just play up the "black victim" issue without any real drive to help the actual communities.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yes. Because if so, there wouldnt ever be good people in power like, ever.
Not even that, but the idea of "Power" is such a nebelous concept that you have to explain what it is and how power corrupts.
Your statement proves the theory. There are like, no good people in power like ever.
Define "Good" and define how power corrupts?
Im still waiting for how power corrupt and what power is.
Can any power corrupt? Does that mean my supervisor and professor are corrupt because they hold power over me?
Or does it have to be a specific type of power? power over the masses? So how can there be good officers.
jmurph wrote: As I pointed out, Chicago has been dominated by the same political party for decades, the same party that nominally champions the poor, minorities, etc. yet remains mired in these issues. Groups like BLM, rather than attacking the institutional problems there and those who have the power to fix it (the mayor, city council, etc.) just play up the "black victim" issue without any real drive to help the actual communities.
Also interesting to me is how the media remains focuses laser-like on Chicago, a city that routinely doesn't crack the top 10 violent cities per capita. Chicago has a murder rate of 15 per capita, St. Louis has 60, Detroit has 46, and so on.
You really never see think pieces asking where the white leadership is in Indianapolis, or Oakland, or Stockton, or Milwaukee, you ever notice? Has there ever been a single thread on Dakka about the murder rate in New Orleans, or Memphis?
Obviously, Chicago has both a gang and violence problem - no two ways about it. However, the constant, disproportionate focus on Chicago's violence really does have a racial / political tinge of concern trolling about it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yes. Because if so, there wouldnt ever be good people in power like, ever. Not even that, but the idea of "Power" is such a nebelous concept that you have to explain what it is and how power corrupts.
Your statement proves the theory. There are like, no good people in power like ever.
Define "Good" and define how power corrupts? Im still waiting for how power corrupt and what power is. Can any power corrupt? Does that mean my supervisor and professor are corrupt because they hold power over me? Or does it have to be a specific type of power? power over the masses? So how can there be good officers.
You define "Good" since you brought it up. Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. The interesting question you should ask is, does power corrupt, or does power draw corrupt people?
Also interesting to me is how the media remains focuses laser-like on Chicago, a city that routinely doesn't crack the top 10 violent cities per capita. Chicago has a murder rate of 15 per capita, St. Louis has 60, Detroit has 46, and so on.
1. President is from there. 2. harsh antifirearms laws. Thats the only things I can think of.
jmurph wrote: As I pointed out, Chicago has been dominated by the same political party for decades, the same party that nominally champions the poor, minorities, etc. yet remains mired in these issues. Groups like BLM, rather than attacking the institutional problems there and those who have the power to fix it (the mayor, city council, etc.) just play up the "black victim" issue without any real drive to help the actual communities.
Also interesting to me is how the media remains focuses laser-like on Chicago, a city that routinely doesn't crack the top 10 violent cities per capita. Chicago has a murder rate of 15 per capita, St. Louis has 60, Detroit has 46, and so on.
You really never see think pieces asking where the white leadership is in Indianapolis, or Oakland, or Stockton, or Milwaukee, you ever notice? Has there ever been a single thread on Dakka about the murder rate in New Orleans, or Memphis?
Obviously, Chicago has both a gang and violence problem - no two ways about it. However, the constant, disproportionate focus on Chicago's violence really does have a racial / political tinge of concern trolling about it.
Crime and Chicago have sold a bunch of newspapers since the days of Capone, Dillinger, and Baby Face Nelson. I guess?
Having lived in Louisiana, I knew all about how bad New Orleans is/was. Weird how that city's violence isn't front and center like Chicago seems to be.
Ouze wrote: Also interesting to me is how the media remains focuses laser-like on Chicago, a city that routinely doesn't crack the top 10 violent cities per capita. Chicago has a murder rate of 15 per capita, St. Louis has 60, Detroit has 46, and so on.
You really never see think pieces asking where the white leadership is in Indianapolis, or Oakland, or Stockton, or Milwaukee, you ever notice? Has there ever been a single thread on Dakka about the murder rate in New Orleans, or Memphis?
Obviously, Chicago has both a gang and violence problem - no two ways about it. However, the constant, disproportionate focus on Chicago's violence really does have a racial / political tinge of concern trolling about it.
Would the POTUS drawing attention to it explain some of the attention?
kronk wrote: Also, Cops shoot a lot of people here. A lot.
Also sort of weird, in this wave of media attention to police misadventures, is again how certain cities with (well earned) poor policing reputations - the NYPD, Chicago - always are bandied about. Less so, stories about Albuquerque, which might have the most corrupt police force in the nation, at least in terms of police brutality.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yes. Because if so, there wouldnt ever be good people in power like, ever.
Not even that, but the idea of "Power" is such a nebelous concept that you have to explain what it is and how power corrupts.
Your statement proves the theory. There are like, no good people in power like ever.
Define "Good" and define how power corrupts?
Im still waiting for how power corrupt and what power is.
Can any power corrupt? Does that mean my supervisor and professor are corrupt because they hold power over me?
Or does it have to be a specific type of power? power over the masses? So how can there be good officers.
The power of chili night WILL corrupt the bathroom!
kronk wrote: Also, Cops shoot a lot of people here. A lot.
Also sort of weird, in this wave of media attention to police misadventures, is again how certain cities with (well earned) poor policing reputations - the NYPD, Chicago - always are bandied about. Less so, stories about Albuquerque, which might have the most corrupt police force in the nation, at least in terms of police brutality.
The story of James Matthew Boyd made it into Rolling Stone, which made an interesting point about hiring practices and how politically driven lax standard contributed to a crop of bad apples. I also couldn't help but notice that despite the local protests, other media outlets largely ignored it. Which is interesting considering that it looks like most of the killings in NM were whites and Hispanics. Doesn't fit the BLM narrative and underscores that such movements are not interested in addressing actual problems. Just like they are not interested in the fact that Native Americans are the most likely group to be killed by police. Or that the biggest correlating factor to being shot by police is not race, but income. Or that Americans are killed by law enforcement at a rate many times that of other Western nations and more whites are killed annually than any other racial group.
Probably because then you get into issues like the US's gun related crime also being of synch with the rest of the world, wealth divisions , etc. Nope, easier to try to make it a simple race issue.
"Power" is the perception or the reality that you have the ability to control people or events.
With great Power, comes great responsibility. Some handle it better than others. For some, it corrupts, for others it does not.
Having a fire arm can imbue "Power". Point a gun at someone, you think you can control them. This young man found out that this "Power" is fleeting, as someone else used the same "Power" to a much more permanent end. Same perception of "Power", used differently indicating that one party used this "Power" much more effectively than the other.
I live near Youngstown, Ohio I would compare it to Mos Eisley from Star Wars. Crime, corruption, and unemployment plague the city. It like a war zone driving through the town,my wife and I were coming home one night and a guy threw a brick through my windshield. Besides minor cuts from the exploding glass nobody was hurt to bad. Most of the stores near my are robbed a couple of times a year, we just had a 23 year old women mug a 84 year old man near my house. I could tell you more but I will let numbers speak for themselves
Chute82 wrote: I live near Youngstown, Ohio I would compare it to Mos Eisley from Star Wars. Crime, corruption, and unemployment plague the city. It like a war zone driving through the town,my wife and I were coming home one night and a guy threw a brick through my windshield. Besides minor cuts from the exploding glass nobody was hurt to bad. Most of the stores near my are robbed a couple of times a year, we just had a 23 year old women mug a 84 year old man near my house. I could tell you more but I will let numbers speak for themselves
Chute82 wrote: I live near Youngstown, Ohio I would compare it to Mos Eisley from Star Wars. Crime, corruption, and unemployment plague the city. It like a war zone driving through the town,my wife and I were coming home one night and a guy threw a brick through my windshield. Besides minor cuts from the exploding glass nobody was hurt to bad. Most of the stores near my are robbed a couple of times a year, we just had a 23 year old women mug a 84 year old man near my house. I could tell you more but I will let numbers speak for themselves
Yes houses and land are cheap around here. I bought my house 10 years ago. 3 bedrooms 2 bath, 2 car garage on 2 acres for 65k. What my cousin payed for her condo in San Diego I would have 500 acres and a mansion here.
TIL that protesting police violence while being black is like being in what was the nation's largest domestic terrorist organization, responsible for killing thousands of people.
Kind of an execrable comparison.
No, it's not.
Racism, inflammatory rhetoric, buzzwords, threats of violence against authorities, social unrest, violations of peace and good order, exclusion, defending proven criminals as the victims, and downplaying the crimes of those they protest over. In that vein, they are exactly the same. There is nothing "execrable" about it. They are not a civil rights organization, as they like to claim. Such a claim is an insult to those that suffered real discrimination during our less-than-perfect past, and to those who actually fought for civil rights in the 50's and 60's.
The only differences are the typical social media, neo-progressive SJW-style bs newspeak, and the fact that they haven't engaged in the level of violence the Klan, White League, and other groups did during Reconstruction. That's it.
TIL that protesting police violence while being black is like being in what was the nation's largest domestic terrorist organization, responsible for killing thousands of people.
Kind of an execrable comparison.
No, it's not.
Racism, inflammatory rhetoric, buzzwords, threats of violence against authorities, social unrest, violations of peace and good order, exclusion, defending proven criminals as the victims, and downplaying the crimes of those they protest over. In that vein, they are exactly the same. There is nothing "execrable" about it. They are not a civil rights organization, as they like to claim. Such a claim is an insult to those that suffered real discrimination during our less-than-perfect past, and to those who actually fought for civil rights in the 50's and 60's.
The only differences are the typical social media, neo-progressive SJW-style bs newspeak, and the fact that they haven't engaged in the level of violence the Klan, White League, and other groups did during Reconstruction. That's it.
TIL that protesting police violence while being black is like being in what was the nation's largest domestic terrorist organization, responsible for killing thousands of people.
Kind of an execrable comparison.
No, it's not.
Racism, inflammatory rhetoric, buzzwords, threats of violence against authorities, social unrest, violations of peace and good order, exclusion, defending proven criminals as the victims, and downplaying the crimes of those they protest over. In that vein, they are exactly the same. There is nothing "execrable" about it. They are not a civil rights organization, as they like to claim. Such a claim is an insult to those that suffered real discrimination during our less-than-perfect past, and to those who actually fought for civil rights in the 50's and 60's.
The only differences are the typical social media, neo-progressive SJW-style bs newspeak, and the fact that they haven't engaged in the level of violence the Klan, White League, and other groups did during Reconstruction. That's it.
That's a very big difference.
n your opinion. From my point of view, any type of racist behavior is equally reprehensible. And there is a very thin line to be crossed in this case, as the riots in Ferguson have proven.
They have the right to express such views, as long as it doesn't cross the line. And #BLM has been known to toe that line.
TIL that protesting police violence while being black is like being in what was the nation's largest domestic terrorist organization, responsible for killing thousands of people.
Kind of an execrable comparison.
No, it's not.
Racism, inflammatory rhetoric, buzzwords, threats of violence against authorities, social unrest, violations of peace and good order, exclusion, defending proven criminals as the victims, and downplaying the crimes of those they protest over. In that vein, they are exactly the same. There is nothing "execrable" about it. They are not a civil rights organization, as they like to claim. Such a claim is an insult to those that suffered real discrimination during our less-than-perfect past, and to those who actually fought for civil rights in the 50's and 60's.
The only differences are the typical social media, neo-progressive SJW-style bs newspeak, and the fact that they haven't engaged in the level of violence the Klan, White League, and other groups did during Reconstruction. That's it.
I like how you complain about buzzwords, then use them to push your idea.
Anyways, BLM is absolutely nothing like the KKK. Let me know when BLM starts a violent terror campaign against a group of people. Then your argument will make a little sense.
Wasn't there an incident at a large University where a bunch of BLM supporters where slamming kids into lockers and went into the library yelling racial slurs and such?
There must be a lot of ignorance of what the Klan has done in the past, and is still doing to this day, if people are able to pretend that BLM is the black version of the KKK...
TIL that protesting police violence while being black is like being in what was the nation's largest domestic terrorist organization, responsible for killing thousands of people.
Kind of an execrable comparison.
No, it's not.
Racism, inflammatory rhetoric, buzzwords, threats of violence against authorities, social unrest, violations of peace and good order, exclusion, defending proven criminals as the victims, and downplaying the crimes of those they protest over. In that vein, they are exactly the same. There is nothing "execrable" about it. They are not a civil rights organization, as they like to claim. Such a claim is an insult to those that suffered real discrimination during our less-than-perfect past, and to those who actually fought for civil rights in the 50's and 60's.
The only differences are the typical social media, neo-progressive SJW-style bs newspeak, and the fact that they haven't engaged in the level of violence the Klan, White League, and other groups did during Reconstruction. That's it.
Can you point out that time when BLM started burning crosses and made family entertainment events out of lynching people?
TIL that protesting police violence while being black is like being in what was the nation's largest domestic terrorist organization, responsible for killing thousands of people.
Kind of an execrable comparison.
No, it's not.
Racism, inflammatory rhetoric, buzzwords, threats of violence against authorities, social unrest, violations of peace and good order, exclusion, defending proven criminals as the victims, and downplaying the crimes of those they protest over. In that vein, they are exactly the same. There is nothing "execrable" about it. They are not a civil rights organization, as they like to claim. Such a claim is an insult to those that suffered real discrimination during our less-than-perfect past, and to those who actually fought for civil rights in the 50's and 60's.
The only differences are the typical social media, neo-progressive SJW-style bs newspeak, and the fact that they haven't engaged in the level of violence the Klan, White League, and other groups did during Reconstruction. That's it.
I like how you complain about buzzwords, then use them to push your idea.
Anyways, BLM is absolutely nothing like the KKK. Let me know when BLM starts a violent terror campaign against a group of people. Then your argument will make a little sense.
What buzzwords, exactly? Neo-progressive isn't a buzzword. It's a description of a post-modernist, socio-political ideology (what liberals and old school leftists call the "regressive left"). And "social justice warrior" is more a derisive term for people of that bent than a buzzword, and one that is usually well deserved.
And spare me your "expertise" on the Ku Klux Klan that you got from a history book. My knowledge and experience of/with the Klan comes from personal experience, since my family had a past history in (and with/against) the Klan, being from the South,living in a time when segregation and the civil rights movement was still fresh on everyone's mind, acquaintance with former Klansmen, and the various seminars/courses I went through during my time in law enforcement dealing with STGs (security threat groups). The vast majority of the Klan's history hasn't been marked by violent activity and active terrorism. The worst period was with the original Klan during Reconstruction, with the Klan going through short periods of violence from local Klaverns during the 1920's and civil rights era. And there have been several "Klans" in existence since the original organization dissolved around 1871. It's never truly been a monolithic organization.
feeder wrote:The KKK was an organized group with a power structure and membership with meetings and directives.
BLM is a hashtag.
But yeah, totally the same.
I think you need to start watching the news more. And do some serious digging on the history on the history of the Ku Klux Klan, besides the basics they teach in high school and post on Wikipedia.
#BlackLivesMatter isn't just a fething hashtag on Twitter. Anybody that hasn't been living on the moon over the last couple of years would know that it's a goddamned MASS MOVEMENT. And it's gone beyond the United States, at least according to #BLM's founders and website. The campaign that they have been waging has involved advocating the murder of law enforcement officers, racist rhetoric, instigating (directly or indirectly) riots, property destruction, disruption of facilities and services, violence, unrest, and has a well run, cost-effective propaganda machine. Plus, they have had a divisive influence on communities by defending criminals killed during the commission of crimes against law enforcement officers, instead of truly innocent black victims of crime (especially black on black crime)
And what group has also had a similar M.O. back in the day, when it had more clout? Here's a hint: It's name has three words, all beginning with the letter "K".
As for the Klan, it's only come closest to possessing the widespread organization you (seemingly) indicated at one point in the history of the various Klans, the so-called "Second Klan" that was fractured in the 1920's, after scandals started coming to light, including the murder-rape of Madge Oberholtzer by D. C. Stephenson, the Grand Wizard of the Indiana Klan. And even then, it was still a collection of independent Klans loosely united by an umbrella organization. The Klan, even the Reconstruction era "First Klan", never achieved true unity in purpose or organization.
That's why the bigots of #BLM is no different in general form than the various Ku Klux Klan groups during most of their history. And it's isn't the level of violence or length of violent periods in their respective histories. It's a matter of fething form.
Anyway, I'm done with this line of discussion in this thread, since it's off topic (which is my fault, really, for deviating and drifting the thread). Believe what you two will. But history and facts speak for themselves.
TIL that protesting police violence while being black is like being in what was the nation's largest domestic terrorist organization, responsible for killing thousands of people.
Kind of an execrable comparison.
No, it's not.
Racism, inflammatory rhetoric, buzzwords, threats of violence against authorities, social unrest, violations of peace and good order, exclusion, defending proven criminals as the victims, and downplaying the crimes of those they protest over. In that vein, they are exactly the same. There is nothing "execrable" about it. They are not a civil rights organization, as they like to claim. Such a claim is an insult to those that suffered real discrimination during our less-than-perfect past, and to those who actually fought for civil rights in the 50's and 60's.
The only differences are the typical social media, neo-progressive SJW-style bs newspeak, and the fact that they haven't engaged in the level of violence the Klan, White League, and other groups did during Reconstruction. That's it.
Can you point out that time when BLM started burning crosses and made family entertainment events out of lynching people?
Irrevelent, and completely misses the point. See my previous responses if you want to know the deal.
Wait, are you literally downplaying klan violence by claiming it was a long time ago, and saying well, they were never a monolithic organization (as if different branches of the klan had different ideologies!).
The klan was directly responsible for at least twice as many domestic deaths as 9/11. You can't handwave that away because it blows a gaping hole into your incredibly poor analogue.
I have to be honest, I thought you were a reasonable dude who I just happened to have some ideological differences with but doubling down on debunked Bill O'Reilly distortions really tore that veil away.
I would say that BLM is comparable to the KKK. Maybe not in organization, the KKK seem to be better organized. Maybe not in acts of violence, the KKK wins that one hands down. But Definitely comparable.
The KKK is literally over a hundred years old, BLM is about 2 years old, give them enough time and they will start closing that gap pretty quickly.
The list goes on and on trust me. Are they currently as bad as the KKK? No they are not, but if they were capable of it they would be. The racially motivated hatred they chant is proof enough that they are not a civil rights group but a racist organization.
It is pathetic that instead of waiting for more details the city came out in protest against a police shooting.
SemperMortis wrote: I would say that BLM is comparable to the KKK. Maybe not in organization, the KKK seem to be better organized. Maybe not in acts of violence, the KKK wins that one hands down. But Definitely comparable.
Other than it size, organization, and acts of violence, BLM is comparable to the largest, organized and violent racist organization in the US.
SemperMortis wrote: I would say that BLM is comparable to the KKK. Maybe not in organization, the KKK seem to be better organized. Maybe not in acts of violence, the KKK wins that one hands down. But Definitely comparable.
Other than it size, organization, and acts of violence, BLM is comparable to the largest, organized and violent racist organization in the US.
We'll just let that sink in for a bit.
Comparable: adjective "capable of being compared; having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison : " (Dictionary.com)
Are they the same, no, are they similar, yes. Please don't attempt to make light of a point just because it disagrees with your stance. Either reject the point with proof or accept it. By attempting to belittle my point you merely point out the lack of support of your own position.
SemperMortis wrote: I would say that BLM is comparable to the KKK. Maybe not in organization, the KKK seem to be better organized. Maybe not in acts of violence, the KKK wins that one hands down. But Definitely comparable.
Other than it size, organization, and acts of violence, BLM is comparable to the largest, organized and violent racist organization in the US.
We'll just let that sink in for a bit.
Comparable: adjective "capable of being compared; having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison : " (Dictionary.com)
Are they the same, no, are they similar, yes. Please don't attempt to make light of a point just because it disagrees with your stance. Either reject the point with proof or accept it. By attempting to belittle my point you merely point out the lack of support of your own position.
Maybe it's my fault for arguing with people that are comparable to politeness, but I think it's pretty clear to most people why it's a pretty stupid thing to try and compare BLM to the KKK.
Well this thread has gone nowhere fast, off topic a few pages ago talking about jesus, now we're mired in "is hte BLM as bad as the Klan". Let's just call it here, too many people toeing the line
around. 
