Milwaukee, Wisconsin (CNN)A deadly shooting of an armed man by Milwaukee police has stirred anger, fear and disbelief as authorities restore calm in the city after a night of violent protest.
Protesters burned several stores and threw rocks at police Saturday night on the city's north side, leaving one officer injured and three protesters arrested. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said protesters had been using social media to draw more demonstrators.
Local officials planned to meet with church and community leaders Sunday to discuss ways to move forward.
"I never thought I would see my own city in a state of unrest and a potential riot," a resident told CNN affiliate WDJT.
It all started Saturday afternoon, when a pair of police officers stopped two people driving through the north-side neighborhood, police said. That led to a foot chase between the people in the car and police, which ended when an officer shot one of the two -- a 23-year-old man who was armed with a handgun, authorities said.
The police officer "ordered that individual to drop his gun, the individual did not drop his gun," Barrett said during a news conference later in the day. "He had the gun with him and the officer fired several times."
The man died at the scene. It was unclear Sunday morning whether the second occupant of the car was in police custody. The officer who fired the fatal shots was not injured and will be placed on administrative duty during an investigation.
The officer who fired the deadly shots is 24 years old and has six years of service with the Milwaukee Police Department -- three as an officer. Police provided no further details on the identities of the officer or the occupants of the car.
The officer was wearing a body camera at the time of the shooting, Barrett said.
"This is a neighborhood that has unfortunately been affected by violence in the recent past," Barrett said. The shooting occurred near the same place where a double homicide happened on August 9. In that incident a man was shot dead and another was fatally stabbed, police said.
City Alderman Khalif Rainey said the area has been a "powder keg" for potential violence throughout the summer.
"What happened tonight may not have been right and I am not justifying that but no one can deny the fact that there are problems, racial problems in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that need to be rectified," Rainey said. "This community of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has become the worst place to live for African Americans in the entire country."
Rainey said Saturday's violence was a byproduct of inequities, injustice, unemployment and under-education.
"Something has to be done to address these issues," he said. "The black people of Milwaukee are tired, they are tired of living under this oppression, this is their life."
Go home, mayor pleads
As the chaos escalated Saturday, the mayor pleaded with protesters to end their demonstrations.
"If you love your son, if you love your daughter, text them, call them, pull them by the ears and get them home. Get them home right now before more damage is done," the mayor said.
"I know this neighborhood very, very well. And there are a lot of really really good people who live in this area -- in the Sherman Park area, who can't stand this violence."
At 3:20 a.m. Sunday, police tweeted they were restoring order and "reducing deployments."
Police: Suspect had stolen gun
The unidentified suspect was shot twice, in the arm and chest, the mayor said. The handgun he carried had been stolen during a burglary in nearby Waukesha in March, according to police.
"The victim of that burglary reported 500 rounds of ammunition were also stolen with the handgun," police said.
Any evidence from the body camera video will likely become a key part of the investigation, said CNN law enforcement analyst Cedric Alexander.
"We're going to see over the next number of hours and the next number of days what information [investigators] feel comfortable releasing to the public, Alexander said. "It think it's going to be essentially important to get out as much of that video, as long as it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the investigation."
By state law, the Wisconsin Department of Justice will lead the investigation.
Wow. What were the police supposed to do in this case? Give the man a cookie,a pat on the back and send him on his merry way? This is getting ridiculous.
Came across this interview on Youtube. There is some SERIOUS propaganda being shoveled by this guy. Sad thing is, it looks like he actually believes what he's saying.
I think there is always room to make sure that there was nothing shady going on after any officer involved shooting, and even a shooting like this has the potential to have been a "bad" shooting.
But unless there is something out there that hasn't hit the news yet, this response seems very extreme.
Seeing as the suspect who got shot had a stolen handgun with him maybe that was reason enough for him to decide running was the thing. Whether the shooting was justified or not is hard to say before seeing the body cam material. Just having a gun isn't IMO reason enough to get shot, pointing it at the police would be a very good reason.
Sounds like he was repeatedly told to drop the weapon, and refused to, and that is when they shot him.
If they were telling him to drop it, then it's likely because he was holding it. Sounds like a good shoot to me, but we'll have to wait and see.
Either way, this type of response is in no way warranted, even were it another bad shoot. Destroying your own neighborhood does absolutely nothing to help you, or the issue.
djones520 wrote: Sounds like he was repeatedly told to drop the weapon, and refused to, and that is when they shot him.
If they were telling him to drop it, then it's likely because he was holding it. Sounds like a good shoot to me, but we'll have to wait and see.
Either way, this type of response is in no way warranted, even were it another bad shoot. Destroying your own neighborhood does absolutely nothing to help you, or the issue.
Refusing to drop a firearm. Every idiot knows you will get shot .
Darwin wins again.
malamis wrote: An UZI isn't beyond the realm of possibility, and would certainly prompt a drastic reaction on sight.
The police wouldn't report that the suspect had a "handgun" if he was carrying an UZI. They would say either an "automatic weapon" if they wanted to vague things up for the media, or a "submachinegun" if they wanted to be accurate. In either case, if the suspect had an UZI, the police would be making sure that every media outlet knew that he was carrying something much, much scarier than a handgun. In this instance, the police have reported a handgun and that it had 23 rounds of ammunition in it, so my money is on a 9mm semi-automatic (possibly a Glock, but other companies make pistols, too) with an extended magazine.
Glcok with extended mag
Any MAC-10 or MAC-11 clone
Uzi
Springfield XDM or XD with extended mag
Smith and Wesson M&P with extended mag
Keltec PLR
Any Pistol AK or AR variant
Pistol version of a Ruger 10-22
Excel arms x-22
Really, anything with an extended mag here. Unless it's a revolver it's not out of the question.
On another note, if you want to express your outrage at a police shooting, not only do you not want to tear down your own neighborhood, but how about you back someone that's obviously not guilty as heck and was basically asking to get shot? Some criminal low-life, gun wielding, thug isn't exactly the best poster child to back.
TheCustomLime wrote: Wow. What were the police supposed to do in this case? Give the man a cookie,a pat on the back and send him on his merry way? This is getting ridiculous.
Maybe that would be better than just shooting him.
We don't know the chain of circumstances so let's not prejudge it. But to go from a traffic stop of some kind to shooting someone is quite a leap.
Obviously if the police stopped the car because it had been identified as being driven by a potentially violent terrorist suspect then it puts a different light on things, but maybe they stopped it for a defective brake light.
At this point the chain of circumstances is going to matter less and less. To some, too many unarmed people have been shot by the police, the police have planted evidence too many times, and there's been enough obfuscation of the truth that the truth no longer matters because it is not discernable from the fiction. The anger is there, and rather than address it authorities across the US have treated it like a child's temper tantrum (which it kind of is, but talking down to angry mobs rarely gets angry mobs to disperse in my experience )
I agree with your points, however I think it is worth pointing out the "chain of circumstances" argument because there appears to be a thread of logic that goes:
Angry mobs are bad, therefore people who form them are bad, and the people they support are bad, so the guy the police shot was bad, and the police were right to shoot him.
I think the logic should begin with "police shooting people is bad, what caused them to do it this time?" There needs to be a proper investigation.
Kilkrazy wrote: No. It's bad for the police to shoot people.
In all cases? Seems so absolute.
The term "necessary evil" comes to mind. Something can be justified, and still be bad or undesirable.
I think people shooting other people is generally undesirable (even if justifiable), especially when the people doing the shooting are civil servants who need the trust of the citizenry to effectively do their job.
Obviously we can construct a scenario in which the police shoot someone who is about to set off a bomb which will kill lots of people, or something. That doesn't make shooting him "good". It makes it the lesser of two evils.
Murder is the worst crime. Killing people is the last resort.
Do you want your police to go about the neighourhood shooting people? Of course not. So start from the position that the police shooting people is bad.
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously we can construct a scenario in which the police shoot someone who is about to set off a bomb which will kill lots of people, or something. That doesn't make shooting him "good". It makes it the lesser of two evils.
Murder is the worst crime. Killing people is the last resort.
Do you want your police to go about the neighourhood shooting people? Of course not. So start from the position that the police shooting people is bad.
On the other hand, I don't want people going around the neighborhood shooting police, either, as seems to be the style these days. It will be interesting to find out what the body cam showed, one way or the other. If it turns out like the incident that was caught on camera at the filling station a few months back, there's nothing to condemn about the police actions.
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously we can construct a scenario in which the police shoot someone who is about to set off a bomb which will kill lots of people, or something. That doesn't make shooting him "good". It makes it the lesser of two evils.
Murder is the worst crime. Killing people is the last resort.
Do you want your police to go about the neighourhood shooting people? Of course not. So start from the position that the police shooting people is bad.
Again... I disagree from that premise because it implies that the police need to do something different. Rather than assesing the root cause of the situation.
In other words, justified killing is simply that... justified.
That something has to be/is justified would imply that it is not inherently good of itself. KK's point would seem to be that we should recognize such acts as such.
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously we can construct a scenario in which the police shoot someone who is about to set off a bomb which will kill lots of people, or something. That doesn't make shooting him "good". It makes it the lesser of two evils.
Murder is the worst crime. Killing people is the last resort.
Do you want your police to go about the neighourhood shooting people? Of course not. So start from the position that the police shooting people is bad.
On the other hand, I don't want people going around the neighborhood shooting police, either, as seems to be the style these days. It will be interesting to find out what the body cam showed, one way or the other. If it turns out like the incident that was caught on camera at the filling station a few months back, there's nothing to condemn about the police actions.
Ultimately, though, will it really matter? The cam could show the other guy firing off a dozen rounds at the cops before he got shot, and it won't make much of a difference. The riot has already happened, stores burned, and the damage done, What does truth matter in the face of what people already want to believe?
The nation's police earned this. There have been many cases of unjustified cops-killing-civilians where no punishment was issued out and nothing changed. People have been given no reason to respond rationally so we shouldn't be surprised that they aren't. If the police had raised this whole issue a year ago as a problem to be addressed and had since been going over research, testimony, and generally making a effort to improve things then the public wouldn't react this way.
Now obviously the situation is not that clear cut and there are shades of grey, but I think the point I'm trying to make is clear. They brought this on themselves.
I think there's some truth to that despite the fact a guy holding a stolen gun isn't my idea of a great candidate to rally a banner around.
The very first post referenced "the Ferguson effect", or the idea that police are afraid to do their jobs now that there is easy access to video that can be spread via social media. Putting aside whether or not this actually exists or not - it seems unlikely to me, and it's pretty hotly disputed - we should talk about what is left unsaid with the concept. Namely that we're not considering how incredibly insulting that idea is to police officers, because the obvious implication to that idea that brutality and misconduct is so widely ingrained that now they can't work for fear of it being exposed.
I have a lot of cops in my family, and if you're afraid to do your job because because someone might film you doing it, you have no right being a cop.
I have a lot of cops in my family, and if you're afraid to do your job because because someone might film you doing it, you have no right being a cop.
I'm a nurse. There are policies with patient and workplace privacy that are supposed to keep people from filming and photographing our interactions with patients. It is against the rules for a family member to use their phone to film us taking care of their dad/mom/child/whatever. But the reality is that there is really nothing stopping anyone from filming me without me knowing it. The person looking like they are playing on their phone could be recording the ER visit, the laptop could be recording, they could have a tape recorder. Anything I say and do could be filmed and it could be used in a lawsuit against me and my facility. But that I still do my job because I am pretty dang certain that I do it well and that I'm not breaking any rules. And heck, there have been plenty of days where I make as many decisions that could kill people as a cop.
The "Ferguson Effect", if it is real, has always existed for all these other high-stakes professions: firefighters, EMTs, physicians, nurses. It's really not something that is confined to the police, and, just like the police, if I was that worried about someone recording my mistakes then I shouldn't be in my profession.
I think that cameras are a useful tool for helping regulate officer behavior but they are not perfect, there are going to be times when they fail or don't happen to catch the fine details properly. Often when there's a police response it triggers a conflict/fight mode in people and they react in a highly emotionally which prompts behavior that they would otherwise not engage in, this is true of both the officers and people they are dealing with.
I know that when I was working both private security and as an auxiliary police officer people will often be perfectly fine until they see that a operated camera is present and upon seeing the camera it triggers a significant outburst and quite frequently they lash out violently. I don't quite understand what the root cause is but cameras often seem to escalate the situation with the public, even when the situation is just a friendly "hey keep things under control" type of interaction or otherwise polite conversation people start lashing out at the camera person especially if they've been drinking. Regardless of it it's police or civilian people typically don't like being recorded and they see it as threatening. Even when it's not being directed at them it will often trigger anger in nearby bystanders who aren't even involved, you bring a camera around for almost any reason and they get very angry.
They don't pay much mind to passive closed circuit type security cameras and in many cases aren't even aware of them, but body cameras or a camera actively being held by an operator draws a significant amount of ire even when there's nothing illegal or significant happening. Being actively recorded triggers something angry in people they will routinely explode and go after the camera man attempting to slap it out of their hands, attempt to break it or assault the operator. It happens even when you are holding well back and not being intrusive, people see the camera and it becomes the sole focus of their attention and they suddenly get a hair trigger. As we were issued cameras as part of our gear I've been on the negative receiving end of that many, many times and it's resulted in a lot of additional arrests that wouldn't have occurred if a camera wasn't present, since they would have simply got a warning and gone along their way, that is until they saw a camera active on an officer and decided to assault the officers over it.
I think that perhaps people see camera in the hands of authority as a presumption of guilt rather than as a tool to help ensure everyone is acting above board?
As far as the incident itself it would not surprise me to find out that he was on parole or had a warrant, especially if WI has a three strikes policy. In a lot of situations where people run or get in shoot outs it's because they are feeling they have nothing to lose. If they are looking at a return to jail with extended or permanent time due to a past record they are often feel pushed into a situation where they feel they have no option but attempt to flee or fight it out and are acting on a very emotional level where they throw reason out the window. (like refusing to drop a weapon despite being surrounded by armed officers) Extreme desperation and duress causes people to make some very illogical and often unhealthy choices.
Some of the most difficult arrests officers have to make are from people who are facing a return to jail over a very minor offense. It's often something simple like a traffic stop where in the majority of cases would just be a ticket or a warning, but having a warrant or parole violation suddenly pushes it into a danger zone situation because the person reacts in a blind panic.
I have a lot of cops in my family, and if you're afraid to do your job because because someone might film you doing it, you have no right being a cop.
I'm a nurse. There are policies with patient and workplace privacy that are supposed to keep people from filming and photographing our interactions with patients.
Doctor/patient (and associated) confidentiality is codified by law for the protection of the patient. It doesn't really compare to police/suspect interaction, especially given that police/suspect interaction is designed to gather evidence to be used in a court of law.
d-usa wrote: It's really not something that is confined to the police, and, just like the police, if I was that worried about someone recording my mistakes then I shouldn't be in my profession.
I wouldn't be surprised if police weren't worried about their mistakes being recorded, but rather the context stripped or modified from a particular situation and being uploaded for the world to see, destroying your good name and even if the context later gets clarified it's too late.
I could imagine cops are probably happier wearing recording devices on themselves to be used in investigations than being recorded by a 3rd party and it uploaded on the internet Rock Bottom style...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: The nation's police earned this. There have been many cases of unjustified cops-killing-civilians where no punishment was issued out and nothing changed.
There have also been many cases of unjustified cops-killing-civilians where punishment WAS issued, the cops losing their jobs or ending up in jail themselves.
And when you say "the nation's police", remember there's 1.1 million people employed in law enforcement in the USA and about 1000 people get killed by police a year, so that means it takes roughly 1000 law enforcement persons to kill 1 civilian.
There's also around 12,000 homicides per year. So the cops are knocking off about 1 civilian for every 10-ish civilians killed by civilians.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would you like to see the numbers of killings be reduced?
I'd like to see all the numbers reduced. Homicides, police killings and the number of police in service, reductions on all counts would be great.... but I also think there's a bit too much sensationalism that comes in to these discussions at the expense of all the decent people who have to put up with their neighbourhoods being vandalised in riots and the huge number of decent police who get caught up in the mess.
I think the best way to improve the numbers is to improve the communities first and foremost. It seems to me the reason young black males are more likely to be shot by police is because young black males are also more likely to be the ones killing other civilians.... maybe THAT'S the big problem we should be trying to address here.
I think there's some truth to that despite the fact a guy holding a stolen gun isn't my idea of a great candidate to rally a banner around.
Problem is that there is cultural expectation that is followed through. Black Lives Matter was a necessary protest movement, but it is spreading beyond its bounds.
London was disrupted by opportunistic sit in protests at transport hubs last week which was dealt with kid gloves to avoid inflaming racial tensions. It was part of a larger scale protest movement which had a low turnout but was positioned to cause maximum transport disruption in order to be heard. Its one thing to protest at a street corner where people have to go around its another to choose to do on the feed road outside a major airport so that people miss their flights.
The excuse, the fifth anniversary of the hooting of Mark Duggan, a known violent drug dealer who had according to police intel aquired an illegal firearm shortly prior to his shooting.
As with riots in the US after police shootings this was a large scale opportunity to loot and burn shops. I am sure people were thinking of poor Mr Duggan when hey ran away from a broken shop window with stolen pair of sneakers or a game console under their arms.
The UK flatly doesn't have the same police violence against minorities issue the US does, and we don't need or deserve this. Mark Duggan could have been of any colour, he would have got the same treatment, and it is odd that BlackLivesMatter has to go back five years to find a martyr cause to consider a protest over I lot of US law enforcement would be thinking 'if only' on that.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The nation's police earned this. There have been many cases of unjustified cops-killing-civilians where no punishment was issued out and nothing changed. People have been given no reason to respond rationally so we shouldn't be surprised that they aren't. If the police had raised this whole issue a year ago as a problem to be addressed and had since been going over research, testimony, and generally making a effort to improve things then the public wouldn't react this way.
Now obviously the situation is not that clear cut and there are shades of grey, but I think the point I'm trying to make is clear. They brought this on themselves.
The police earned a riot where the people involved destroy the property of regular people unrelated to the shooting?
TheCustomLime wrote: Wow. What were the police supposed to do in this case? Give the man a cookie,a pat on the back and send him on his merry way? This is getting ridiculous.
Maybe that would be better than just shooting him.
We don't know the chain of circumstances so let's not prejudge it. But to go from a traffic stop of some kind to shooting someone is quite a leap.
Obviously if the police stopped the car because it had been identified as being driven by a potentially violent terrorist suspect then it puts a different light on things, but maybe they stopped it for a defective brake light.
Mmm fair enough. It will be very interesting when the bodycam footage comes out.
It doesn't necessarily explain the current case, but it helps explain the background of why crime sometimes seems to cluster.
Do you mean you think that's already happening, or as a concern for the future? Because I don't think it's really the case that black communities are targeted more thus have higher reported crime, I'd say they have higher crime and thus are targeted more, if they are even targeted more. I've heard the argument that you get a greater proportion of cops in wealthy areas, making an appearance, stopping the less serious crimes and racking up fines rather than delving in to the depths of more dangerous areas. Certainly in the area I lived in while I was in PA that seemed to be the case, the University I worked at was surrounded by a rough area. So you had wealthy areas just a few streets from poor areas and the cop cars just seemed to circle the wealthy areas even though muggings and property damage seemed to always be reported in the poor areas, literally just a few hundred yards away from what seemed to be the cop's patrol area. EDIT: To be fair, the wealthy areas were mostly students from wealthy backgrounds and a few academics and staff of the University, so the cops might have just been trying to keep the college kids out of danger as they stumble home drunk every night).
The FBI stats show blacks make up 43.5% of murderers in the USA (most of which are male) but are only 12.2% of the population, that's not really a statistic that can come from over policing an area due to profiling causing a disproportionate amount of crimes reported to crimes committed.
The police across the nation may deserve more severe scrutiny and lack of faith due to the actions of some in their ranks, but the shop owners most certainly did not deserve to have their businesses burned and looted. Full Stop.
Do you want your police to go about the neighourhood shooting people?
People that have already been involved in shooting someone else and brandishing stolen firearms? Very much yes!
I think a lot of the problem stems from lumping entire swathes of the population together and making assumptions. Saying "the Police deserve this!" Is just as dumb as saying "those Thugs deserve this!" There are thousands of police departments in the country made up of individual people. Most are good people doing a very tough job. Just like there are millions of good, hard working Black people out there who don't run out of there vehicle at the first sign of the police. Seeing these as separate instances and taking each story individually is the only way to try and separate the good from the bad, like with people.
The police across the nation may deserve more severe scrutiny and lack of faith due to the actions of some in their ranks, but the shop owners most certainly did not deserve to have their businesses burned and looted. Full Stop.
If I was a shop owner I'd be worried. It's ain't a protest its a excuse to loot and destroy.
If you loot and a shop owner shoots you. Meh. Your own idiotic fault.
According to reports, the body cam supposedly(I haven't seen it yet) has the "victim" refusing to drop the gun and raising it to fire. It was a good shoot apparently. Shooter was also a black officer negating the whole white supremacy crap the Panthers are crying about.
Said it before, culture has to change. People need to learn to respect cops and authority. In white and better off communities' kids are taught cops are the good guys and heroes, listen to what they say. Low income communities treat cops like the villains and refuse to cooperate. Parents even teach their kids this. Its like a badge of honor to have served time and the music glorifies all these illegal acts. The people in these communities need to stop defending these criminals who are preying on their own communities. If they reported crime, actively helped the cops instead of obstructing, you would see less of this us vs them mentality. These are close knit communities, everyone knows where the crack houses are, who the dealers are, who the bangers are. But no, they circle the wagons making life difficult for the law enforcement to do their job.
jmurph wrote: Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.
Riots and looting are earned by police conduct.
"protests" because you need as new tv, pair of jordans or just want some free snacks...
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Just like there are millions of good, hard working Black people out there who don't run out of there vehicle at the first sign of the police.
And yet those millions of "hard-working black people" have their rights violated by the police at alarmingly higher rates than other demographics, and slowly get burdened with increasing 'frivolous' citations which leads to them having their rights violated more and more. How many of these 'he had a warrant so it justified us doing everything' been for nothing more serious than an outstanding speeding/parking ticket? As soon as certain people hear 'warrant' they assume the person was a criminal dirtbag and 'deserved what they got' and they pay no mind to the widespread corruption and documented malfeasance which is found in every DOJ report after every one of these incidents.
jmurph wrote: Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.
Because the DOJ findings tells us it isn't a stereotype, it is a confirmed, documented, wide-spread behavior by *ALL* police. Those who are not violating rights are witnessing it and being silent or helping cover up for those who do. Makes them all part of the problem and bad cops. If there was even 10% good cops out there, we wouldn't have this level of coverups, silence, and continued widespread abuse by the police.
jmurph wrote: Things I learned today: It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.
Because the DOJ findings tells us it isn't a stereotype, it is a confirmed, documented, wide-spread behavior by *ALL* police. Those who are not violating rights are witnessing it and being silent or helping cover up for those who do. Makes them all part of the problem and bad cops. If there was even 10% good cops out there, we wouldn't have this level of coverups, silence, and continued widespread abuse by the police.
And yet folks vote for the same city council members, police chiefs, DAs, and mayors over and over again. Guess to take your astute analysis to the next level, ALL those people ARE BAD PEOPLE for voting for the same gak bags and the same policies over and over and over. If they are not voting for them, they know folks who are . Makes them all part of the problem.
jmurph wrote: Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.
Because the DOJ findings tells us it isn't a stereotype, it is a confirmed, documented, wide-spread behavior by *ALL* police. Those who are not violating rights are witnessing it and being silent or helping cover up for those who do. Makes them all part of the problem and bad cops. If there was even 10% good cops out there, we wouldn't have this level of coverups, silence, and continued widespread abuse by the police.
DOJ source saying 100% of police are bad, please.
Pretty amazing that THEY ARE ALL BAD considering the thousands of different agencies all run by different cities in different states.....
jmurph wrote: Things I learned today:
It is bad to stereotype, unless it to label "police" then it is ok.
Because the DOJ findings tells us it isn't a stereotype, it is a confirmed, documented, wide-spread behavior by *ALL* police. Those who are not violating rights are witnessing it and being silent or helping cover up for those who do. Makes them all part of the problem and bad cops. If there was even 10% good cops out there, we wouldn't have this level of coverups, silence, and continued widespread abuse by the police.
And yet folks vote for the same city council members, police chiefs, DAs, and mayors over and over again. Guess to take your astute analysis to the next level, ALL those people ARE BAD PEOPLE for voting for the same gak bags and the same policies over and over and over. If they are not voting for them, they know folks who are . Makes them all part of the problem.
On a bit of a tangent, it's always bothered me that when the DOJ has to come in and take over running a municipal PD that all the govt officials in charge of it, mayor, city council, police chief, DA, etc. that were supposed to be overseeing the PD and making sure they did their job properly get to keep their jobs. Like with Baltimore, if the BPD is so inept, corrupt and racist that it has to be taken over by the DOJ and cleaned up then all the govt officials were supposed to be in charge of the PD while it was being so poorly run should also get tossed out. Those people were elected/chosen to make sure the city government was properly run and under their watch the PD went rogue so those people need to be held accountable for their failings instead of abdicating their responsibility for good governance to the DOJ.
Kilkrazy wrote: Should the DOJ be empowered to throw elected officials out of their positions?
Should it be empowered to interfere in State, County and Municipality LEAs at all?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Heck, since the DOJ is clearly part of the problem since ALL law enforcement types are corrupt racists, maybe we ought to just disband it.
Conceivably, the DOJ is there to deal with stuff like Civil Rights era Alabama where the governance and population were perfectly fine with racially discriminatory law enforcement against a minority group. However, when you get to 2015 Baltimore, it gets more complicated as now you are dealing with a largely minority population, but also minority governance (including police officers). It is why BLM and such is off base- there is no national police force and problems must be addressed on a department by department basis. Some departments may have racial issues, others may not.
Regardless, rioting and looting only further victimizes the very communities that such "protestors" claim to represent.
Orlanth wrote: Black Lives Matter was a necessary protest movement, but it is spreading beyond its bounds.
BLM started off as rioting and calls for violence and continues as such. Yes, there are peaceful outliers that use BLM slogans but they're not actually affiliated with the main BLM organization.
Orlanth wrote: ...and it is odd that BlackLivesMatter has to go back five years to find a martyr cause to consider a protest over...
Not if you understand that protesting isn't what BLM is really about. BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
Not if you understand that protesting isn't what BLM is really about. BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
They have not, to my knowledge, begun dragging people from their homes and hanging them.
From what I've read and seen on this shooting, it certainly seems like a "good shoot." Obviously, I'd like to see more details, the body cam footage, etc...
kronk wrote: From what I've read and seen on this shooting, it certainly seems like a "good shoot." Obviously, I'd like to see more details, the body cam footage, etc...
That's where I am with this too. The reports are all indicating that this is a good shoot (in the absence of the body cam footage being released to the public), and rioting as a reflex action undermines the legitimate concerns that the BLM group has.
Orlanth wrote: Black Lives Matter was a necessary protest movement, but it is spreading beyond its bounds.
BLM started off as rioting and calls for violence and continues as such. Yes, there are peaceful outliers that use BLM slogans but they're not actually affiliated with the main BLM organization.
Orlanth wrote: ...and it is odd that BlackLivesMatter has to go back five years to find a martyr cause to consider a protest over...
Not if you understand that protesting isn't what BLM is really about. BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
Sorry, I cannot agree. BLM does have extremeist elements and opportunist elements looking to score capital elsewhere.
Black people in America have every reason to be worried and some get shot even while being savvy to this. We don't need BLM in Europe, it is needed in America.
Also despite the inclusion of extremist elements the same movement has other elements, which can be called more mainstram for a number of reasons but most notably because Obama personally hosted them face to face alongside police chiefs.
Obama hosts BLM spokesperson.
BLM has been legitimized as a political lobby movement. Whether Obama did the right thing by this or whether he should have chosen other people to represent the black community and their fears is for someone else to say.
jmurph wrote: Conceivably, the DOJ is there to deal with stuff like Civil Rights era Alabama where the governance and population were perfectly fine with racially discriminatory law enforcement against a minority group. However, when you get to 2015 Baltimore, it gets more complicated as now you are dealing with a largely minority population, but also minority governance (including police officers). It is why BLM and such is off base- there is no national police force and problems must be addressed on a department by department basis. Some departments may have racial issues, others may not.
Regardless, rioting and looting only further victimizes the very communities that such "protestors" claim to represent.
From what I've seen, the rioters and agitators for violence are not the locals, but people from outside looking to have some fun in the chaos at the expense of other people.
Orlanth wrote: Black Lives Matter was a necessary protest movement, but it is spreading beyond its bounds.
BLM started off as rioting and calls for violence and continues as such. Yes, there are peaceful outliers that use BLM slogans but they're not actually affiliated with the main BLM organization.
Orlanth wrote: ...and it is odd that BlackLivesMatter has to go back five years to find a martyr cause to consider a protest over...
Not if you understand that protesting isn't what BLM is really about. BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
In that video the sister of Sylville Smith echoes that thought and encourages folks to not burn down their own community.
Of course, she then goes on to encourage folks to go to the suburbs and burn them down instead...
I wonder if that would meet the relevant criminal statute in the state.
The nation's police earned this.
Does that mean the non-rioting population in the area deserve to have their businesses and homes destroyed and they potentially killed? If the nonrioting members defended their place of business and shot several rioters, would that be a good thing or bad thing under your belief system? If a police officer is shot during the riot does the officer deserve that too?
d-usa wrote: People who claim that BLM is like the KKK are a shining example of the failure of our educational system.
I'm sure Breotan is aware that BLM hasn't killed thousands of people the way the KKK has, he just doesn't care it's not true. It's a big difference.
And here I thought he was thinking that BLM members are active in city, county, state, and national legislative bodies, as well as the police forces, and that they are using this power to pass legislation promoting racial hatred and injustice, and that they are intimidating anybody that has a problem with that by destroying their businesses, threatening them at home, beating them, and frequently killing them, all while taking comfort in the fact that nobody is going to do anything about it because the head of law enforcement is also a BLM member and he is underneath one of the black hoods in the crowd.
And yeah, the whole lynching and killing people thing as well...
skyth wrote: Here Breotan proves that he believes the Nazi propaganda maxim, that if you lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth.
Breotan wrote: BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
d-usa wrote: People who claim that BLM is like the KKK are a shining example of the failure of our educational system.
I'm sure Breotan is aware that BLM hasn't killed thousands of people the way the KKK has, he just doesn't care it's not true. It's a big difference.
Is that what I said? Or is that what you want me to have said? I swear to God, straw man stuffing makes up nearly half of the posts on this site. I never said they were like the KKK, I said BLM is as racist as the Klan, and they very much are. I also like how you dig into history of the Klan to support your argument but ignore BLM protesters calling for cops and white people to be murdered.
Have any of you even LOOKED at BLM's "demands"? They have a pretty sophisticated web site listing them and they have very little to do with actually reforming police policies regarding the use of profiling and deadly force. It's the same old recycled feth it was back when BLM meant "Black Liberation Movement".
Orlanth wrote: Black Lives Matter was a necessary protest movement, but it is spreading beyond its bounds.
BLM started off as rioting and calls for violence and continues as such. Yes, there are peaceful outliers that use BLM slogans but they're not actually affiliated with the main BLM organization.
Orlanth wrote: ...and it is odd that BlackLivesMatter has to go back five years to find a martyr cause to consider a protest over...
Not if you understand that protesting isn't what BLM is really about. BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
Sorry, I cannot agree. BLM does have extremeist elements and opportunist elements looking to score capital elsewhere.
Black people in America have every reason to be worried and some get shot even while being savvy to this. We don't need BLM in Europe, it is needed in America.
Also despite the inclusion of extremist elements the same movement has other elements, which can be called more mainstram for a number of reasons but most notably because Obama personally hosted them face to face alongside police chiefs.
I'm going to agree/disagree with you...
BLM hasn't reached KKK levels... but there are undertones of Black Power violence in this movement.
What I don't agree is that blacks have every reason to be worried.
The focus/attention is being misplaced.
Instead, they should be worried as how the BLM movement has been hijacked, where it currently harbors, shelters, and empowers true radicals of "outside provocateurs" - who not only have no problem seeing our cities burn, they’re also fanning the flames.
If the moderates, who truly does seek peaceful engagement, cannot overcome these provocateurs... then it will continue to be this destructive force that we see now and any credibility will be questioned.
I lived 15 minutes away when Ferguson 'sploded.
Here's the main culprit:
Spoiler:
For perspective, I can drive west/south on 270 from Spanish Lake all the way 270/55 in about 20 minutes (provided that there's no traffic!).
You see a bunch of townships in this region... which is a bit unusual compared to other major metropolitian cities.
Ferguson and it's surrounding townships has a high black populations, and the property values isn't that great to begin with...
So, what does these townships do to maintain budget?
They "encourage" the PD to issues citation like candies...
To people who drive their streets...
Whom happens to be their own constituents.
As a St. Louis native, you just know that you don't speed/have illegal window tintings/blast you music in certain areas in town... or you will get pulled over.
Ferguson was one of "those towns"... just as Dellwood/Bel-Nor/Bel-Ridge/Cool Valley.
This isn't a racial issue... just fething dumb assed policies... combined with all these little townships just compounds everything.
For years, the St. Louis region has talked about mergers.
Then, some of us would like St. Louis County/City to be divide into something like NYC's borough civil structure:
Spoiler:
But because this'll change the civil structures (and who's in charge).... these little kingdoms fight tooth-and-nail against these sorts of proposed changes.
Breotan wrote:Is that what I said? Or is that what you want me to have said? I swear to God, straw man stuffing makes up nearly half of the posts on this site. I never said they were like the KKK, I said BLM is as racist as the Klan, and they very much are. I also like how you dig into history of the Klan to support your argument but ignore BLM protesters calling for cops and white people to be murdered.
Have any of you even LOOKED at BLM's "demands"? They have a pretty sophisticated web site listing them and they have very little to do with actually reforming police policies regarding the use of profiling and deadly force. It's the same old recycled feth it was back when BLM meant "Black Liberation Movement".
But I guess it's easier for some on Dakka to say a person is uneducated or lying than it is to engage in critical thought and debate.
Here's what you actually said:
Breotan wrote: BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
So please, explain to me how the BLM is a lot more violent than the KKK, which was responsible for thousands of deaths. I mean, you gasp and drop onto your fainting couch in shock but it doesn't change the fact you said something very, very clearly untrue by any definition or spin, even if you're now trying to quietly walk back "and a lot more violent" by not including it in the second post.
skyth wrote: Here Breotan proves that he believes the Nazi propaganda maxim, that if you lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth.
Breotan wrote: BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
d-usa wrote: People who claim that BLM is like the KKK are a shining example of the failure of our educational system.
I'm sure Breotan is aware that BLM hasn't killed thousands of people the way the KKK has, he just doesn't care it's not true. It's a big difference.
Is that what I said? Or is that what you want me to have said? I swear to God, straw man stuffing makes up nearly half of the posts on this site. I never said they were like the KKK, I said BLM is as racist as the Klan, and they very much are. I also like how you dig into history of the Klan to support your argument but ignore BLM protesters calling for cops and white people to be murdered.
Have any of you even LOOKED at BLM's "demands"? They have a pretty sophisticated web site listing them and they have very little to do with actually reforming police policies regarding the use of profiling and deadly force. It's the same old recycled feth it was back when BLM meant "Black Liberation Movement".
But I guess it's easier for some on Dakka to say a person is uneducated or lying than it is to engage in critical thought and debate.
First off, that someone made a website that does not mean that they actually represent Black Lives Matters. This is like claiming that the Westboro Baptist Church represents real Christianity. They have a web site too BLM is not an organized movement. It was not formed as a violent racist organization despite your continuous attempts to lie about it. It was a populist movement. It is also not racist to demand blacks be given the same respect as white people. That is what the organization is about...Wanting to be treated like an equal. If you think that is racist you need to seriously consider education and what racism really is.
Basically, your whole statement is a big ball of lies created by racists that were feeling threatened by the idea of equality.
What I don't agree is that blacks have every reason to be worried.
As unpleasant as the truth is, there is enough factual evidence of blacks getting a raw deal from police.
Furthermore it is meeting a lot of press attention.
Perhaps its a bit like child molester statistics; the chances of a child being a victim are very remote in western countries but the reality of when it does happen is so horrible that it becomes a major worry.
I cannot and will not citicise blacks for joining BLM in th US.
The focus/attention is being misplaced.
Instead, they should be worried as how the BLM movement has been hijacked, where it currently harbors, shelters, and empowers true radicals of "outside provocateurs" - who not only have no problem seeing our cities burn, they’re also fanning the flames.
This has always been a problem with protest movements, especially ones based around a cause forged by fear and anger.
How many times have we all heard of stories of peaceful protest marches turning into riots. There will always be some scum who will turn a protest into an excuse for violence, the motives vary though.
Perhaps by Obama giving BLM a platform he is helping forge a moderate leadership to the movement, rioting will be on Obamas and the polices agenda; and we can be pretty sure the people Obama chose to have photoshoots with are not the type to chuck bricks.
If the moderates, who truly does seek peaceful engagement, cannot overcome these provocateurs... then it will continue to be this destructive force that we see now and any credibility will be questioned.
There is a problem within certain communities that they don't like being old what to do. Particularly ones where there is a lot of savage pride and people demand 'respect' certain forms of African American culture fit this pattern. It will be difficult to control.
Peac will be called for by moderate leaders, and it will save their credibility, but it will likely fall on deaf ears.
As with similar movements the violence will likely not be accredited to BLM itself, partly because the leadership will be blameless and part because challenging BLM might of itself spark racial tensions.
So, what does these townships do to maintain budget?
They "encourage" the PD to issues citation like candies...
To people who drive their streets...
Whom happens to be their own constituents.
As a St. Louis native, you just know that you don't speed/have illegal window tintings/blast you music in certain areas in town... or you will get pulled over. Ferguson was one of "those towns"... just as Dellwood/Bel-Nor/Bel-Ridge/Cool Valley.
This isn't a racial issue... just fething dumb assed policies... combined with all these little townships just compounds everything.
For years, the St. Louis region has talked about mergers.
The UK has this problem. Back in the middle age we learned that you never try to make a profit out of the judicial fines system, justice suffers. Despite all our advancements this one bit of wisdom was forgotten.
Thankfully traffic policing is done on a regional and national level. We have no FBI equivalent, but we do have a nationwide motorway (highway) traffic police for example.
Where local councils use the system as a little earner is with parking. And to compound this they use private contractors who make a%, which is never an incentive to honest enforcement. Tricks like cropping photo evidence to exclude drivers from stationary but unparked cars to make them eligible for a fine.
By and large once a car is moving it is safe, but a parked car is a cash sourse. Yes it is annoying, but not riot inducing.
Breotan wrote: BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
So please, explain to me how the BLM is a lot more violent than the KKK, which was responsible for thousands of deaths. I mean, you can drop your hankerchief and drop onto your fainting couch but it doesn't change the fact you said something very, very clearly untrue by any definition or spin, even if you're now trying to quietly walk back "and a lot more violent" by not including it in the second post.
Believe whatever you want, Ouze, it doesn't change the fact that BLM is inspiring riots and thuggery everywhere police use deadly force against a black suspect, regardless of what the facts are. No, BLM supporters aren't out lynching people the way the Klan did but there are plenty of videos out there showing BLM protesters calling for murder and riots. BLM also has a huge propaganda machine dedicated to spreading the belief that there is a literal "war on blacks" in America. It takes little time to dig up videos of "official" BLM protests chanting for the death of cops and BLM "protesters" have been interviewed calling for the deaths of white people. There is also a trove of youtube videos showing rioters shouting BLM slogans, burning police cars, and looted stores. Twitter goes Full Metal Stupid by these guys making racists posts. You only have to look at what's happening in Milwaukee to see the fruits of BLM's labor. You have only to look back at the sniper in Dallas to see that their calls for violence are being taken seriously.
d-usa wrote: To be fair, it's pretty hard for us to know what he actually meant when he doesn't know what he actually meant.
Okay, I steer as far away from the OT forum as possible, but this was on the top of the main page, and it just lined up far too well. I just finished listening to the latest episode of "Cognitive Dissonance" right before coming here. Normally it's a skeptical comedy podcast. This week's episode, however, is NOT comedy focused. It is an interview with a former Baltimore cop who talks about these kinds of incidents and how to respond to them (in his educated opinion).
The hosts, Tom & Cecil, are willing to mock anything, so if you have "sacred cows" you don't want defamed, steer clear. They also swear. A lot.
That said, this was a real eye-opener in terms of these sorts of things, and how he personally went from having the usual "comply or die" label attached to him to being a member of the community.
Breotan wrote: BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
So please, explain to me how the BLM is a lot more violent than the KKK, which was responsible for thousands of deaths. I mean, you can drop your hankerchief and drop onto your fainting couch but it doesn't change the fact you said something very, very clearly untrue by any definition or spin, even if you're now trying to quietly walk back "and a lot more violent" by not including it in the second post.
Believe whatever you want, Ouze, it doesn't change the fact that BLM is inspiring riots and thuggery everywhere police use deadly force against a black suspect, regardless of what the facts are. No, BLM supporters aren't out lynching people the way the Klan did but there are plenty of videos out there showing BLM protesters calling for murder and riots. BLM also has a huge propaganda machine dedicated to spreading the belief that there is a literal "war on blacks" in America. It takes little time to dig up videos of "official" BLM protests chanting for the death of cops and BLM "protesters" have been interviewed calling for the deaths of white people. There is also a trove of youtube videos showing rioters shouting BLM slogans, burning police cars, and looted stores. Twitter goes Full Metal Stupid by these guys making racists posts. You only have to look at what's happening in Milwaukee to see the fruits of BLM's labor. You have only to look back at the sniper in Dallas to see that their calls for violence are being taken seriously.
So is it your stance that BLM is a lot more violent because they make rants on youtube, burned 2 police cars, and looted stores, instead of killing thousands of people, bombing schools and churches and such? I want to make sure I'm understanding you, since you keep arguing we're spinning what you are saying. Are you saying that there are over 3,400 BLM videos on youtube and twitter endorsing violence, and each one of these is about the same, or worse than, as a person murdered by the KKK? Truly, I wish to understand.
skyth wrote: It was not formed as a violent racist organization despite your continuous attempts to lie about it.
The calls for cops to be killed and repeated rioting tend not to support your argument.
skyth wrote: Basically, your whole statement is a big ball of lies created by racists that were feeling threatened by the idea of equality.
White racists didn't put words into the mouths of those BLM supporters caught on video speaking their minds. Racist BLM supporters did that on their own.
Hey, since it's their page, which page specifically calls for violence? I read through it, and - craziest thing - despite the fact it's mostly a violent racist organization, with a few peaceful outliers, as you said earlier - I can't find any of the calls to violence I thought I would. It looks like a bunch of boring legislative calls to action! Weird, huh, since it's their page? Help me out, can you drop me a link to somewhere on that site where they call for violence to achieve their goals? Or call for violence at all? It must be super obviously there but I just can't seem to find it.
Ouze wrote: So is it your stance that BLM is a lot more violent because they make rants on youtube, burned 2 police cars, and looted stores, instead of killing thousands of people, bombing schools and churches and such? I want to make sure I'm understanding you, since you keep arguing we're spinning what you are saying. Are you saying that there are over 3,400 BLM videos on youtube and twitter endorsing violence, and each one of these is about the same, or worse than, as a person murdered by the KKK? Truly, I wish to understand.
Do you not think that shooting cops and throwing Molotov cocktails isn't violent? Do you not think that rioters targeting white people and trying to pull them out of their cars and beat them isn't violence? Do you think that millions in property damage isn't violent? Or how about the videos of people who apparently think that protesting means stealing a big screen TV during a riot?
Ouze wrote: Are you saying that there are over 3,400 BLM videos on youtube and twitter endorsing violence, and each one of these is about the same, or worse than, as a person murdered by the KKK? Truly, I wish to understand.
I'm pretty sure that sniping at cops in Dallas is as bad as a person murdered by the KKK.
Ouze wrote: So is it your stance that BLM is a lot more violent because they make rants on youtube, burned 2 police cars, and looted stores, instead of killing thousands of people, bombing schools and churches and such? I want to make sure I'm understanding you, since you keep arguing we're spinning what you are saying. Are you saying that there are over 3,400 BLM videos on youtube and twitter endorsing violence, and each one of these is about the same, or worse than, as a person murdered by the KKK? Truly, I wish to understand.
Do you not think that shooting cops and throwing Molotov cocktails isn't violent? Do you not think that rioters targeting white people and trying to pull them out of their cars and beat them isn't violence? Do you think that millions in property damage isn't violent? Or how about the videos of people who apparently think that protesting means stealing a big screen TV during a riot?
Ouze wrote: Are you saying that there are over 3,400 BLM videos on youtube and twitter endorsing violence, and each one of these is about the same, or worse than, as a person murdered by the KKK? Truly, I wish to understand.
I'm pretty sure that sniping at cops in Dallas is as bad as a person murdered by the KKK.
You said "way, way more violent than the KKK". The KKK has killed at least 3,400 people. I'm very bad at math, but even if we assume, wrongly, that the BLM sanctioned that guy sniping at cops, then it still seems to me - bad at math as I am - that 6 is not "way, way more violence" that 3,400. Help me out here. I mean, are we doing an all lives matter thing, where every single dead person is more or less that same as the Holocaust? Because that would at least make some level of sense, in a way. Is that what you mean?
Personally, I think you should just walk back the silly, untrue thing you said, but that's just my 2 cents.
Ouze wrote: Hey, since it's their page, which page specifically calls for violence? I read through it, and - craziest thing - despite the fact it's mostly a violent racist organization, with a few peaceful outliers, as you said earlier - I can't find any of the calls to violence I thought I would. It looks like a bunch of boring legislative calls to action! Weird, huh, since it's their page? Help me out, can you drop me a link to somewhere on that site where they call for violence to achieve their goals? Or call for violence at all? It must be super obviously there but I just can't seem to find it.
First off, since you seem to willfully ignore stuff before you post, I'll remind you of what I said about their site.
Have any of you even LOOKED at BLM's "demands"? They have a pretty sophisticated web site listing them and they have very little to do with actually reforming police policies regarding the use of profiling and deadly force. It's the same old recycled feth it was back when BLM meant "Black Liberation Movement".
You find their calls to violence from what they chant in their protests, rioting, and social media spam. There are plenty of Youtube videos where they tend to speak their mind without a filter.
No, I just pointed out how incredibly silly and dishonest it is to say that BLM is way, way more violent than the KKK, which has killed thousands of people, is.
The Dallas shooter worked for Jimmy Johns. Was Jimmy Johns responsible for the Dallas attacks? No, that's a stupid argument, you'd say, and you'd be right. Yet there is just as much sanctioning of the Dallas attack from Jimmy Johns as there was from BLM. Even if we assume it was sanctioned, though, which it wasn't, then 6 is still an order of magnitude less that 3,400, so it just was a ridiculous, silly thing to say no matter how you slice it.
jmurph wrote: Conceivably, the DOJ is there to deal with stuff like Civil Rights era Alabama where the governance and population were perfectly fine with racially discriminatory law enforcement against a minority group. However, when you get to 2015 Baltimore, it gets more complicated as now you are dealing with a largely minority population, but also minority governance (including police officers). It is why BLM and such is off base- there is no national police force and problems must be addressed on a department by department basis. Some departments may have racial issues, others may not.
Regardless, rioting and looting only further victimizes the very communities that such "protestors" claim to represent.
From what I've seen, the rioters and agitators for violence are not the locals, but people from outside looking to have some fun in the chaos at the expense of other people.
Orlanth wrote: Black Lives Matter was a necessary protest movement, but it is spreading beyond its bounds.
BLM started off as rioting and calls for violence and continues as such. Yes, there are peaceful outliers that use BLM slogans but they're not actually affiliated with the main BLM organization.
Orlanth wrote: ...and it is odd that BlackLivesMatter has to go back five years to find a martyr cause to consider a protest over...
Not if you understand that protesting isn't what BLM is really about. BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.
Ouze, you and I both know that you aren't going to convince someone who links Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh of anything contrary to what they have been told.
Ouze wrote: No, I just pointed out how incredibly silly and dishonest it is to say that BLM is way, way more violent than the KKK, which has killed thousands of people, is.
The Dallas shooter worked for Jimmy Johns. Was Jimmy Johns responsible for the Dallas attacks? No, that's a stupid argument, you'd say, and you'd be right. Yet there is just as much sanctioning of the Dallas attack from Jimmy Johns as there was from BLM. Even if we assume it was sanctioned, though, which it wasn't, then 6 is still an order of magnitude less that 3,400, so it just was a ridiculous, silly thing to say no matter how you slice it.
Pretty much this. Although it is rather disturbing to see black power nut-jobs trying to co-opt the movement. And almost as disturbing to see people assume these attempts are whole movment and ignore the actual messages that need to be put across...
So when called on a lie, you double down on the lie. Continuing to lie about something does not magically make it true.
skyth wrote: It was not formed as a violent racist organization despite your continuous attempts to lie about it.
The calls for cops to be killed and repeated rioting tend not to support your argument.
And proof that this came from BLM?
skyth wrote: Basically, your whole statement is a big ball of lies created by racists that were feeling threatened by the idea of equality.
White racists didn't put words into the mouths of those BLM supporters caught on video speaking their minds. Racist BLM supporters did that on their own.
So you are fine with painting a minority of extremists as representative of the entire group? Would you be fine with David Duke being representative of the entire Republican party?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Ouze, you and I both know that you aren't going to convince someone who links Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh of anything contrary to what they have been told.
He's just too well informed.
Sure, but a lot of people who hang out in this forum are from overseas, and they may not be familiar with the history of the KKK as the Klan is not as prominent as they once were. They might just assume that the KKK was about the same as BLM since people keep repeating that, unaware that the KKK was responsible for thousands of deaths, countless acts of violence, bombings, intimidation, and were integrated into all levels of power in our government for a long time.
skyth wrote: So when called on a lie, you double down on the lie. Continuing to lie about something does not magically make it true.
You calling someone a lair does not make them a liar, no matter how frequently and repeatedly you do it, even after you godwin the thread in the process.
skyth wrote: Basically, your whole statement is a big ball of lies created by racists that were feeling threatened by the idea of equality.
White racists didn't put words into the mouths of those BLM supporters caught on video speaking their minds. Racist BLM supporters did that on their own.
So you are fine with painting a minority of extremists as representative of the entire group? Would you be fine with David Duke being representative of the entire Republican party?
OMG what is with the strawman arguments on this site? They never end. I swear to God, it's like arguing with a twelve year old.
I completely understand the outrage over *some* of these shootings, but rallying behind every person who is killed by cops, justified or unjustified, simply based on the color of their skin is definitely not helping their credibility.
Regardless of the arguments, the post that guy has are hilarious in their incoherence and spirituality.
Proof that the movement was inciting violence against cops. Mainstream media is flat out lying, saying that the BLM protesters weren't inciting nationwide violence, in this video the who movement were calling out for the murder of police, that night in New York City shortly after this clip the shooting in Dallas happened, in other words the very founders, supporters are technically dissidents-soon to be indicted savages. On felonious treasonous charges. I wouldn't want to be there founders who are probably being investigated for terrorism and extremism funded by a White Wealthy Elite; GEORGE SOROS, Beyonce knolls & Jay Z's Master at the plantation. Wake up people it's a TRAP? Race baiting by elites to perform a gun grab by passing bills in congress to take away your guns, board a plane and possibly your rights to due process if you're apart of the extremists protesters inciting genocide they can legally kill you in the streets if not execute you by legal means deemed fit by a doctor as your not fit to live in society if your pulling this
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I completely understand the outrage over *some* of these shootings, but rallying behind every person who is killed by cops, justified or unjustified, simply based on the color of their skin is definitely not helping their credibility.
Rallying behind people like Charles Kinsey and Philando Castile is fine and should be encouraged. Rallying behind criminals and thugs hurts their credibility more.
Let's ensure our posts are polite. Calling others twelve year olds, liars and the like is not how to disagree politely. If you can't be polite, maybe just take a breather from posting down here, go hang out in dakka discussions or a 40k subforum.
skyth wrote: Basically, your whole statement is a big ball of lies created by racists that were feeling threatened by the idea of equality.
White racists didn't put words into the mouths of those BLM supporters caught on video speaking their minds. Racist BLM supporters did that on their own.
So you are fine with painting a minority of extremists as representative of the entire group? Would you be fine with David Duke being representative of the entire Republican party?
OMG what is with the strawman arguments on this site? They never end. I swear to God, it's like arguing with a twelve year old.
So here is where you throw a temper tantrum and resort to personal attacks when someone uses the same 'logic' and 'evidence' you use to condem BLM to condem a group you support...
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I completely understand the outrage over *some* of these shootings, but rallying behind every person who is killed by cops, justified or unjustified, simply based on the color of their skin is definitely not helping their credibility.
Rallying behind people like Charles Kinsey and Philando Castile is fine and should be encouraged. Rallying behind criminals and thugs hurts their credibility more.
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:
While looking for the above video I found this, which is now somewhat relevant to the thread.
I take comparing the KKK to BLM but in the video and on this thread is a metaphor not a literal comment.
Orlanth wrote: There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled. The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:
Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.
But I'm wary of any argument that comes from anecdotal experience rather than actual numbers. There's 1.1 million people employed with law enforcement in the USA, I'm sure you can cherry pick specific anecdotal evidence to support any view point you like, there'd have to be on the order of millions of interactions between police and civilians each week in the US.
The statistics that still strike home with me (and I'm open to new information if there's some available), according to the FBI stats black persons are responsible for around 43 to 44% of murders in the USA, represent 12% of the community and make up roughly 30% of the people shot by police (and those numbers aren't concrete, but it seems in the ballpark from various sources).
So that to me says police aren't automatically more likely to shoot and kill a black person than a white person, if anything white people manage to get shot and killed by police more often relative to the number of people murdered by whites, but obviously I don't think there's discrimination against whites rather that there's likely other factors to consider.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I completely understand the outrage over *some* of these shootings, but rallying behind every person who is killed by cops, justified or unjustified, simply based on the color of their skin is definitely not helping their credibility.
Rallying behind people like Charles Kinsey and Philando Castile is fine and should be encouraged. Rallying behind criminals and thugs hurts their credibility more.
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I very much support media efforts to bring this disparity to light. I believe that in cases where legitimate discrimination is found the police department should receive a metaphoric enema. I would like to see City Council and Mayors receive the same treatment. Anyone that cares to go back through my history (especially the Philando Castile thread) will find that I am solidly in favor of a deescalation approach to policing and very vocal against the militarization of law enforcement. I've also called for an end to SWAT teams going out on calls as first responders instead of having a regular LEO checking it out first (remember swatting?). Far fewer people will be killed if police departments adopt and incorporate deescalation policies. It frustrates me to no end when a police officer is involved in an unwarranted shooting and is acquitted. Reform is absolutely needed and it needs to be implemented quickly.
The girl in that second video might be one of the worst people I have ever had the horror of listening to. I have had to endure a few of her videos before and I have yet to find a redeeming quality in any of them.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Ouze, you and I both know that you aren't going to convince someone who links Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh of anything contrary to what they have been told.
He's just too well informed.
Sure, but a lot of people who hang out in this forum are from overseas, and they may not be familiar with the history of the KKK as the Klan is not as prominent as they once were. They might just assume that the KKK was about the same as BLM since people keep repeating that, unaware that the KKK was responsible for thousands of deaths, countless acts of violence, bombings, intimidation, and were integrated into all levels of power in our government for a long time.
I'm going to agree with you that in the history of the KKK they are significantly worse than BLM. Thankfully the KKK is in a pretty steady decline and are mostly viewed with scorn these days. They have no where near the power or influence they used to.
And here is where Breotan may have accidently found a little truth. He said BLM is as bad has the KKK "is", not "was". Since BLM formed 4 years ago how many deaths, riots, or political influence can be attributed to the KKK? (Not defending them in the slightest here). I'm just saying that BLM during its current upswing is somewhat comparable to the current, nearly dying KKK. That being said, everyone in the KKK is pretty much an ignorant POS racist, while I am sure there are BLM members that are in it for all the right reasons.
Any group can quickly go to crap when the most radical, violent members are the ones in charge. Even the KKK itself started as a secret social fraternity (although still admittedly racist) before quickly turning into a paramilitary organization bent on intimidation and violence.
Orlanth wrote: There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:
Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.
But I'm wary of any argument that comes from anecdotal experience rather than actual numbers. There's 1.1 million people employed with law enforcement in the USA, I'm sure you can cherry pick specific anecdotal evidence to support any view point you like, there'd have to be on the order of millions of interactions between police and civilians each week in the US.
The statistics that still strike home with me (and I'm open to new information if there's some available), according to the FBI stats black persons are responsible for around 43 to 44% of murders in the USA, represent 12% of the community and make up roughly 30% of the people shot by police (and those numbers aren't concrete, but it seems in the ballpark from various sources).
So that to me says police aren't automatically more likely to shoot and kill a black person than a white person, if anything white people manage to get shot and killed by police more often relative to the number of people murdered by whites, but obviously I don't think there's discrimination against whites rather that there's likely other factors to consider.
You are conflating separate issues. The rise of BLM is a response to police shootings of black people in situations like traffic stops, not murders. (The police aren't supposed to shoot murderers anyway.)
You need to compare the rate at which the police shoot white people in traffic stops.
Orlanth wrote: There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:
Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.
Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.
But I'm wary of any argument that comes from anecdotal experience rather than actual numbers. There's 1.1 million people employed with law enforcement in the USA, I'm sure you can cherry pick specific anecdotal evidence to support any view point you like, there'd have to be on the order of millions of interactions between police and civilians each week in the US.
It's not anecdotal if it is fairly witnessed, as these videos are.
I see your point though, videos show individual cases. But then Philandro Castile was an individual case, it was not disregarded.
Also with video witness you will have to cherry pick to some extent, you can't just load up the entirity of YouTube or security camera evidence for a holistic view. Also it isn't the point. The events happen, and more importantly they are noticed in the press, aired by the press commented on by the press. That is the relevant point.
It is actually less relevant what crime statistics read, not only because statistical evidence can be cherry picked also, and often is. But more the the point if the percentages show there isn't really a problem, but the press have hold of a video and say the opposite. Which is going to be more influential in public opinion?
Government isn't science, there is no hard statistical border to determine whether levels of crime are 'acceptible', everything is opinion based, and the largest influences on opinion matter the most.
The statistics that still strike home with me (and I'm open to new information if there's some available), according to the FBI stats black persons are responsible for around 43 to 44% of murders in the USA, represent 12% of the community and make up roughly 30% of the people shot by police (and those numbers aren't concrete, but it seems in the ballpark from various sources).
I can believe that. Stats in the UK are broadly similar, I don't know the umbers but I can say that ethnic minorities cause a disproportionately high number of crimes. This is the reason (and not racism) s to why 'stop and search' mostly targets ethnic minorities.
However you try telling that to a black community.
Taking 'stop and search' in the UK as an example, blacks do get pulled over more per capita. That is fact and police statistics have to record that fact as part of mandatory monitoring.
Police however stop and search known criminals, particularly those who might have evidence in their car, drug dealers primarily. Drug gangs tend not to be equal opportunity employers, and while eastern Europeans are also big in the drugs trade, black gangs are also very dominant, far beyond the point in which one would expect as a percentage of the population.
Therefore more blacks will be stopped. There is good logic and motive to this, but to an agitator the only relevant point is that blacks get pulled over more, and that must be because of police racism.
Orlanth wrote: There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled. The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:
Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.
But I'm wary of any argument that comes from anecdotal experience rather than actual numbers. There's 1.1 million people employed with law enforcement in the USA, I'm sure you can cherry pick specific anecdotal evidence to support any view point you like, there'd have to be on the order of millions of interactions between police and civilians each week in the US.
The statistics that still strike home with me (and I'm open to new information if there's some available), according to the FBI stats black persons are responsible for around 43 to 44% of murders in the USA, represent 12% of the community and make up roughly 30% of the people shot by police (and those numbers aren't concrete, but it seems in the ballpark from various sources).
So that to me says police aren't automatically more likely to shoot and kill a black person than a white person, if anything white people manage to get shot and killed by police more often relative to the number of people murdered by whites, but obviously I don't think there's discrimination against whites rather that there's likely other factors to consider.
You are conflating separate issues. The rise of BLM is a response to police shootings of black people in situations like traffic stops, not murders. (The police aren't supposed to shoot murderers anyway.)
You need to compare the rate at which the police shoot white people in traffic stops.
I'm not conflating anything because I wasn't talking about traffic stops at all. I would be surprised if the number of people shot by police in traffic stops is a meaningful proportion of the total number of people shot by police, I was talking more generally.
But since you brought it up, do you have any stats relating specifically to traffic stops where people got shot after being pulled over for speeding, running a red light, etc?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: It is actually less relevant what crime statistics read, not only because statistical evidence can be cherry picked also, and often is. But more the the point if the percentages show there isn't really a problem, but the press have hold of a video and say the opposite. Which is going to be more influential in public opinion?
That's exactly my point, IMO the press need to be scrutinised for what they say based on the reality of what actually happens.
Are black people actually oppressed, or do they just feel they are oppressed because they are constantly told they are oppressed? It's an important distinction and key to improving the situation instead of just inciting idiots to burn down their local neighbourhoods and start shooting cops.
We need to talk more about reality rather than media-driven fantasy if we want to fix problems. The media is happy over stating gak so it sounds worse if it means more people watching them, more newspapers sold, etc.
It'll be a real problem if police get scared in to not helping specific crime ridden communities because those communities are primarily black. I don't have a huge number of African American friends, but I'm encouraged that the few I do are often posting/sharing "support our police" and "all lives matter" messages on facebook rather than the inciteful crap that seems to come across mainstream media. Regardless of whether there is or isn't a racism problem in the police force it's still encouraging that some people are trying to ease tensions rather than raise them.
Mainstream media is so crap that I get people all the way over in Australia telling me misrepresentations about some story in the US they saw on the news, I can't imagine American media is going to be better than the Australian media.
Orlanth wrote: It's not anecdotal if it is fairly witnessed, as these videos are.
I'm using the definition of anecdotal which means data based off non-scientific observation, so a video of an individual situation is anecdotal in the sense it doesn't encompass real meaningful data.
Government isn't science, there is no hard statistical border to determine whether levels of crime are 'acceptible', everything is opinion based, and the largest influences on opinion matter the most.
I don't think any crime is acceptable, my point is entirely "where is the root of the problem and how should we be addressing it?" Arrest statistics I think are very hard to draw useful information from, I specifically used murder stats because I think they paint a better picture, you are less likely to have unreported and unattributable murders than you are to have unreported robbery, rape, assault, vandalism, etc. and murder rates unlike arrest rates are less likely to be skewed by overpolicing of particular communities resulting in more arrests per crime committed.
Therefore more blacks will be stopped. There is good logic and motive to this, but to an agitator the only relevant point is that blacks get pulled over more, and that must be because of police racism.
I'm not a fan of unwarranted stop and search to begin with, it sounds rather unconstitutional
Soladrin wrote: So, let me get your argument straight, they aren't as bad as the KKK so it's alright?
You'll have to also help me out where I said it was alright. I'm sure it's in here somewhere.
Have you not learnt by now? In the OT, saying that X isn't anywhere near as bad as Y means that you must be a supporter of X! (See: Hillary vs Trump, Romney vs Obama, this, among others)
Orlanth wrote: There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:
Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.
Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.
That segment is rather terrible and an example of bad "journalism." Under the guise of supporting his gross generalization that cops everywhere are racist and treat white criminals better than black criminals Cenk shows videos of different police officers in different departments in different states de-escalating situations involving armed white men. He then compares those responses to the Philando Castile shooting in Minnesota, which involved a third different group of officers in a different department in a different state. That isn't evidence of his claim of racial discrimination by cops at all. If Cenk wanted to prove that cops were treating white criminals different than black criminals committing the same crimes then he needs to show the same officers in the same departments responding to similar crimes with different races of suspect and treating the different races of suspects differently. The idea that the cops in a town in Ohio responding to an armed white criminal differently than cops in a small town in Minnesota responded to a situation involved an armed black man doesn't show racism at all, it's two completely different sets of cops.
The article linked in the youtube posting of that video does the same thing, it contrasts different responses from different departments in different states, that's incredibly dishonest and biased. If you think cops in a police department are racist then you should be able to show incidences of cops in that department treating situations differently when dealing with people of different races. That article claims that the fact that two white guys screwing around with a BB gun in a Walmart in Idaho didn't get shot by cops but a black man fiddling with a BB gun in a Walmart in Ohio did get shot by cops is evidence that cops are racist which completely ignores logic and reasoning.
Asking the question of, Would a black man in the same situation by treated the same way by the cops? is a worthless hypothetical. There's no way to know if the cops would have treated a black man in the same situation differently. Has there been an incident with the same cops or same PD responding to a similar call that involved a black man? No? Then don't waste time insulting your audience by claiming that the response to a similar incident involving a black man by a completely different PD somehow makes the cops in another state that weren't involved in the incident in any way racist.
Orlanth wrote: There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled. The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:
Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.
Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.
That segment is rather terrible and an example of bad "journalism." Under the guise of supporting his gross generalization that cops everywhere are racist and treat white criminals better than black criminals Cenk shows videos of different police officers in different departments in different states de-escalating situations involving armed white men. He then compares those responses to the Philando Castile shooting in Minnesota, which involved a third different group of officers in a different department in a different state. That isn't evidence of his claim of racial discrimination by cops at all. If Cenk wanted to prove that cops were treating white criminals different than black criminals committing the same crimes then he needs to show the same officers in the same departments responding to similar crimes with different races of suspect and treating the different races of suspects differently. The idea that the cops in a town in Ohio responding to an armed white criminal differently than cops in a small town in Minnesota responded to a situation involved an armed black man doesn't show racism at all, it's two completely different sets of cops.
The article linked in the youtube posting of that video does the same thing, it contrasts different responses from different departments in different states, that's incredibly dishonest and biased. If you think cops in a police department are racist then you should be able to show incidences of cops in that department treating situations differently when dealing with people of different races. That article claims that the fact that two white guys screwing around with a BB gun in a Walmart in Idaho didn't get shot by cops but a black man fiddling with a BB gun in a Walmart in Ohio did get shot by cops is evidence that cops are racist which completely ignores logic and reasoning.
Asking the question of, Would a black man in the same situation by treated the same way by the cops? is a worthless hypothetical. There's no way to know if the cops would have treated a black man in the same situation differently. Has there been an incident with the same cops or same PD responding to a similar call that involved a black man? No? Then don't waste time insulting your audience by claiming that the response to a similar incident involving a black man by a completely different PD somehow makes the cops in another state that weren't involved in the incident in any way racist.
I haven't watched a lot of The Young Turks, but that's primarily because what I have watched of them has been stupidly biased, agenda before the facts and often illogical crap, from your description this sounds much the same.
Orlanth wrote: There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:
Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.
Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.
That segment is rather terrible and an example of bad "journalism." Under the guise of supporting his gross generalization that cops everywhere are racist and treat white criminals better than black criminals Cenk shows videos of different police officers in different departments in different states de-escalating situations involving armed white men. He then compares those responses to the Philando Castile shooting in Minnesota, which involved a third different group of officers in a different department in a different state. That isn't evidence of his claim of racial discrimination by cops at all. If Cenk wanted to prove that cops were treating white criminals different than black criminals committing the same crimes then he needs to show the same officers in the same departments responding to similar crimes with different races of suspect and treating the different races of suspects differently. The idea that the cops in a town in Ohio responding to an armed white criminal differently than cops in a small town in Minnesota responded to a situation involved an armed black man doesn't show racism at all, it's two completely different sets of cops.
The article linked in the youtube posting of that video does the same thing, it contrasts different responses from different departments in different states, that's incredibly dishonest and biased. If you think cops in a police department are racist then you should be able to show incidences of cops in that department treating situations differently when dealing with people of different races. That article claims that the fact that two white guys screwing around with a BB gun in a Walmart in Idaho didn't get shot by cops but a black man fiddling with a BB gun in a Walmart in Ohio did get shot by cops is evidence that cops are racist which completely ignores logic and reasoning.
Asking the question of, Would a black man in the same situation by treated the same way by the cops? is a worthless hypothetical. There's no way to know if the cops would have treated a black man in the same situation differently. Has there been an incident with the same cops or same PD responding to a similar call that involved a black man? No? Then don't waste time insulting your audience by claiming that the response to a similar incident involving a black man by a completely different PD somehow makes the cops in another state that weren't involved in the incident in any way racist.
I haven't watched a lot of The Young Turks, but that's primarily because what I have watched of them has been stupidly biased, agenda before the facts and often illogical crap, from your description this sounds much the same.
It's frustrating because I agree with the principle that we have to constantly vigilant with government oversight, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Police have a lot of authority and power over people and it's very important for society that our elected leaders make sure that police departments are run properly. We know that departments can have problems with corruption, racism and counter productive policies but we need to remember that it occurs in a localized fashion. Every municipal, state and federal LEA is different and there's nothing to be gained by making sweeping generalizations and then trying to support them with intellectually dishonest "evidence."
Orlanth wrote: There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.
I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:
Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.
Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.
That segment is rather terrible and an example of bad "journalism." Under the guise of supporting his gross generalization that cops everywhere are racist and treat white criminals better than black criminals Cenk shows videos of different police officers in different departments in different states de-escalating situations involving armed white men. He then compares those responses to the Philando Castile shooting in Minnesota, which involved a third different group of officers in a different department in a different state. That isn't evidence of his claim of racial discrimination by cops at all. If Cenk wanted to prove that cops were treating white criminals different than black criminals committing the same crimes then he needs to show the same officers in the same departments responding to similar crimes with different races of suspect and treating the different races of suspects differently. The idea that the cops in a town in Ohio responding to an armed white criminal differently than cops in a small town in Minnesota responded to a situation involved an armed black man doesn't show racism at all, it's two completely different sets of cops.
The article linked in the youtube posting of that video does the same thing, it contrasts different responses from different departments in different states, that's incredibly dishonest and biased. If you think cops in a police department are racist then you should be able to show incidences of cops in that department treating situations differently when dealing with people of different races. That article claims that the fact that two white guys screwing around with a BB gun in a Walmart in Idaho didn't get shot by cops but a black man fiddling with a BB gun in a Walmart in Ohio did get shot by cops is evidence that cops are racist which completely ignores logic and reasoning.
Asking the question of, Would a black man in the same situation by treated the same way by the cops? is a worthless hypothetical. There's no way to know if the cops would have treated a black man in the same situation differently. Has there been an incident with the same cops or same PD responding to a similar call that involved a black man? No? Then don't waste time insulting your audience by claiming that the response to a similar incident involving a black man by a completely different PD somehow makes the cops in another state that weren't involved in the incident in any way racist.
I haven't watched a lot of The Young Turks, but that's primarily because what I have watched of them has been stupidly biased, agenda before the facts and often illogical crap, from your description this sounds much the same.
It's frustrating because I agree with the principle that we have to constantly vigilant with government oversight, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Police have a lot of authority and power over people and it's very important for society that our elected leaders make sure that police departments are run properly. We know that departments can have problems with corruption, racism and counter productive policies but we need to remember that it occurs in a localized fashion. Every municipal, state and federal LEA is different and there's nothing to be gained by making sweeping generalizations and then trying to support them with intellectually dishonest "evidence."
I can definitely agree with that.
I'm all for limiting police power and keeping them on a short leash to ensure they are there *for* the community and not *against* the community but I want to see realistic goals based on reality rather than sensationalism.
You are conflating separate issues. The rise of BLM is a response to police shootings of black people in situations like traffic stops, not murders. (The police aren't supposed to shoot murderers anyway.)
You need to compare the rate at which the police shoot white people in traffic stops.
I'm not conflating anything because I wasn't talking about traffic stops at all. I would be surprised if the number of people shot by police in traffic stops is a meaningful proportion of the total number of people shot by police, I was talking more generally.
But since you brought it up, do you have any stats relating specifically to traffic stops where people got shot after being pulled over for speeding, running a red light, etc?
...
Not on me, so to speak. It would be worth looking up, the stats probably can be found somewhere. I am just pointing out that black people are no more in favour of murders than white people, but they resent being shot by the police for reaching for a licence or helping to restrain a mentally ill man while being a mental health professional.
The problem with the theory that because black people are more likely to be drug dealers the police should stop and search them more is that the more you stop and search any group, the more crimes you will find. This leads you to stop and search that group more.
In these kind of cases we must also adjust for socioeconomics and population dispersion. A poor man living in a bad neighborhood in LA is going to be treated differently than a middle class woman living in the rural Midwest.
Simply saying cops are inherently racist because they arrest and shoot minorities more is like saying they are also inherently sexist. After all the disparity in male to female subjects when it comes to force is actually greater than that of Black to White.
While they might not be all racist and sexist, there is a pattern of targeting minorities and abusing their spouses at a significantly higher rate that one would statistically expect and it sure does look like these are systemic issues. :/
Kilkrazy wrote: but they resent being shot by the police for reaching for a licence or helping to restrain a mentally ill man while being a mental health professional.
And those cases seem to me to be rare and very unfortunate mistakes. Both those cases, Castile and Kinsley, are still under investigation and hopefully the officers, which seem to be at the very least guilty of not following procedures, are reprimanded.
The problem with the theory that because black people are more likely to be drug dealers the police should stop and search them more is that the more you stop and search any group, the more crimes you will find. This leads you to stop and search that group more.
Well, firstly, as I've said previously, that's why I specifically stated murder stats, not arrest stats as I think murder stats are less likely to be biased by over policing.
Blacks might be 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police, but it's not an unrelated stat that blacks are 5 times more likely to be the offender in a murder case.
Is it racist to point out that crime itself is biased by race? I don't think it is anymore than it is sexist to point out that men are around 10 times more likely to be murderers than women.... it doesn't mean all men are murderers, it doesn't mean women aren't capable of murder, but it goes a way to explaining why most the people shot by police are men. I don't think anyone would suggest the police force is sexist against men when men are targeted more than women (unless it's to make stats more sensationalist, because you can say "black men" are 5 times more likely to be shot than the rest of the population where as you can only say "blacks" are 2.5 times more likely to be shot, and the former is better for click bait!).
Secondly, the thing is, a lot of the time the black people shot were drug dealers, were carrying weapons illegally, were acting in a menacing way, had been previously convicted of violent crimes, etc. Obviously not all the time, but I'd suggest when you start paring back to only the cases like Kinsley and Castile, relative to the 1.1M law enforcement employees they aren't common enough to make claims of systemic racism (opposed to localised racism or simply unfortunate mistakes due to suspects being more likely to be black as well).
Kilkrazy wrote: but they resent being shot by the police for reaching for a licence or helping to restrain a mentally ill man while being a mental health professional.
And those cases seem to me to be rare and very unfortunate mistakes. ...
They don't seem to black people to be rare and unfortunate mistakes.
Kilkrazy wrote: but they resent being shot by the police for reaching for a licence or helping to restrain a mentally ill man while being a mental health professional.
And those cases seem to me to be rare and very unfortunate mistakes. ...
They don't seem to black people to be rare and unfortunate mistakes.
I could make a joke about education systems not teaching maths properly there but it'd probably be taken as racist
The USA has 319 million people (roughly 3.6 times more than any other western nation) and 1.1 million people employed in law enforcement.
Cases are rare.
Walking up to a black person and shooting them will incur punishment, while I can't read the minds of the cops involved in incidents, I doubt they woke up that morning with the intention to go shoot someone just for the sake of shooting someone.
Cases are unfortunate mistakes.
That's why I brought up earlier that it's an important distinction to be made, are blacks actually oppressed systemically or do they only feel oppressed because they are constantly told they are oppressed.
It's important to make the distinction because it's the one that tells you how you actually fix the problem instead of just using the problem to sell newspapers and get page clicks.
And again huge generalisations are being made here, you say "they don't seem to black people..." but of the few african american people I know, they seem to be police supporters and vehemently against demonising the police force. The people I get pushing the other side are mostly white folk, but obviously living in Australia now biases that because people here get their information largely from sensationalist mainstream media.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: while I can't read the minds of the cops involved in incidents, I doubt they woke up that morning with the intention to go shoot someone just for the sake of shooting someone.
This always struck me as a particularly feeble rationalization for police wrongdoing, but you see it again and again, like it matters at all.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Walking up to a black person and shooting them will incur punishment, while I can't read the minds of the cops involved in incidents, I doubt they woke up that morning with the intention to go shoot someone just for the sake of shooting someone.
Cases are unfortunate mistakes.
If a person crashed their car it'd be an unfortunate mistake. After all, I doubt they woke up that morning and decided to crash their car. And if they repeatedly crashed the car, well then each instance would be an unfortunate mistake and we wouldn't assign malice to them, but we'd still talk about it as a problem and be amazed if they didn't think anything was wrong with their driving.
Because, very obviously, we are aware of problems and issues outside of deliberately malicious acts. And institutions that do the wrong thing repeatedly are recognised as having a problem, even when malice isn't directly involved.
There was an instance here in Iowa about 8 years ago if I remember correctly. A cop chased a guy for a couple minutes for having a broken tail light. The guy parked under a street light on the outskirts of Harland, Iowa.
The cop rushes up to the window holding his baton in his right hand and his gun in his left (cop is right handed). As he swings the baton at the truck's window his gun goes off shooting the guy in the head with a 12-year old daughter in the passenger seat.
The officer initially claimed the gun "accidentally" discharged. However, when he went to trial he claimed it was self defense as he mistook a lit cigarette and a cell phone for a weapon. Driver's hands were in the air.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: while I can't read the minds of the cops involved in incidents, I doubt they woke up that morning with the intention to go shoot someone just for the sake of shooting someone.
This always struck me as a particularly feeble rationalization for police wrongdoing, but you see it again and again, like it matters at all.
Well it's a good thing I didn't use it as a rationalisation for police wrong doing then isn't it!
All I'm saying is call a spade a fething spade. Don't use rare and unfortunate circumstances to try and paint a picture of a systemic problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: And if they repeatedly crashed the car, well then each instance would be an unfortunate mistake and we wouldn't assign malice to them, but we'd still talk about it as a problem and be amazed if they didn't think anything was wrong with their driving.
Yeah except apples and oranges.
And I don't think I ever said we shouldn't talk about it as a problem, I just think we need to identify the problem with facts and come to realistic conclusions on what the biggest problems are and how to fix them.
I mean, I think the biggest problems are that the cops shoot anyone at all regardless of race and that a black person is 5 times more likely to be a murderer than a white person (after all, more people are killed at the hands of civilians than police by more than an order of magnitude). The first problem is a tough one in the US as long as large portion of the population is armed I fully expect the police to either intentionally or accidentally shoot citizens at a higher rate than other western countries because cops are going to feel the need to defend themselves and are going to both make mistakes and be put in situations where they have no good out. The 2nd one is also a tough one and revolves around having isolated black communities with poor socio-economic situations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: There was an instance here in Iowa about 8 years ago if I remember correctly. A cop chased a guy for a couple minutes for having a broken tail light. The guy parked under a street light on the outskirts of Harland, Iowa.
The cop rushes up to the window holding his baton in his right hand and his gun in his left (cop is right handed). As he swings the baton at the truck's window his gun goes off shooting the guy in the head with a 12-year old daughter in the passenger seat.
The officer initially claimed the gun "accidentally" discharged. However, when he went to trial he claimed it was self defense as he mistook a lit cigarette and a cell phone for a weapon. Driver's hands were in the air.
So what happened in the end? What did the court find? Was the cop found to be in the wrong, failed to follow procedures, etc. and if so was he appropriately punished?
AllSeeingSkink wrote:All I'm saying is call a spade a fething spade. Don't use rare and unfortunate circumstances to try and paint a picture of a systemic problem.
What? But if they can't do that then their whole narrative is lost! How are we suppoosed to perpetuate victimization and capitalize on it for votes?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: []So what happened in the end? What did the court find? Was the cop found to be in the wrong, failed to follow procedures, etc. and if so was he appropriately punished?
I had to look up the case. The jury found the officer not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but he was fired from the department anyway for failure to abide by regulations. The daughter ended up getting a settlement, I think it was only in the 5-figure range.
“At one point he stated that he knew we couldn’t hurt the black groups on the street so he wanted to let us know that he takes care of them for us,” police wrote. “That he is able to fight those fights and will continue the fight against all of the Black Lives Matters people.”
The suspect, who told police he’d done time at the Washington State Penitentiary, also informed them that he wanted to attend a Donald Trump rally to continue “stomping out more of the Black Lives Matter group.”
Umm, he is exactly the kind of guy police are likely to shoot.
If you think white supremacists have any love for the police, you may want to try again. It was just an excuse so he could assault some black people. He even said as much.
“At one point he stated that he knew we couldn’t hurt the black groups on the street so he wanted to let us know that he takes care of them for us,” police wrote. “That he is able to fight those fights and will continue the fight against all of the Black Lives Matters people.”
The suspect, who told police he’d done time at the Washington State Penitentiary, also informed them that he wanted to attend a Donald Trump rally to continue “stomping out more of the Black Lives Matter group.”
I am shocked, shocked I say, that he is a Trump supporter.
“At one point he stated that he knew we couldn’t hurt the black groups on the street so he wanted to let us know that he takes care of them for us,” police wrote. “That he is able to fight those fights and will continue the fight against all of the Black Lives Matters people.”
The suspect, who told police he’d done time at the Washington State Penitentiary, also informed them that he wanted to attend a Donald Trump rally to continue “stomping out more of the Black Lives Matter group.”
I am shocked, shocked I say, that he is a Trump supporter.
Both sides have their fringe morons. Or do we need to pull out the video of the Obama supporter advocating for "killing all the cracker babies"
“At one point he stated that he knew we couldn’t hurt the black groups on the street so he wanted to let us know that he takes care of them for us,” police wrote. “That he is able to fight those fights and will continue the fight against all of the Black Lives Matters people.”
The suspect, who told police he’d done time at the Washington State Penitentiary, also informed them that he wanted to attend a Donald Trump rally to continue “stomping out more of the Black Lives Matter group.”
I am shocked, shocked I say, that he is a Trump supporter.
Both sides have their fringe morons. Or do we need to pull out the video of the Obama supporter advocating for "killing all the cracker babies"
Do we have one of an Obama supporter stabbing a white guy for him?
CptJake wrote: Probably not, but we did recently have a BLM supporter cap a bunch of cops in Dallas.
So far we went from "white supremacist Trump supporter stabbed black people for the cops" to "there Is a video of an Obama supporter talking about killing cracker babies" to "Dallas sniper was a BLM supporter".
But do we have an Obama supporter who is a race supremacist killing members of the other race for some other group yet?
Because if we are just going to name random instances of interracial killings I'm sure we can google "[race] killing [other race]" all day.
cuda1179 wrote: Both sides have their fringe morons. Or do we need to pull out the video of the Obama supporter advocating for "killing all the cracker babies"
By all means, please do provide this video rather than just saying that it possibly exists somewhere in order to try and make a point.
cuda1179 wrote: Both sides have their fringe morons. Or do we need to pull out the video of the Obama supporter advocating for "killing all the cracker babies"
By all means, please do provide this video rather than just saying that it possibly exists somewhere in order to try and make a point.
It was from 2012 I think, but it's not unusual rhetoric from the New Black Panther Party.
Meanwhile, we can all rest easy that someone finally decided to stand up to BLM:
"We're not out here to instigate or start any problems," Reed said. "Obviously we're exercising our Second Amendment rights but that's because we have to defend ourselves. Their organizations and their people are shooting people based on the color of their skin. We're not. We definitely will defend ourselves, but we're not out here to start any problems." ... Reed said the flags were being flown as a symbol of Southern heritage. "It has nothing to do with racism on our part," Reed said. "We're proud to be Southern. It has all to do about heritage, nothing to do with hate."
And in case you are like me and don't know the significance of "14 words", I took the liberty to google it:
"14 Words" is a reference to the most popular white supremacist slogan in the world: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." The slogan was coined by David Lane, a member of the white supremacist terrorist group known as The Order (Lane died in prison in 2007). The term reflects the primary white supremacist worldview in the late 20th and early 21st centuries: that unless immediate action is taken, the white race is doomed to extinction by an alleged "rising tide of color" purportedly controlled and manipulated by Jews.
The Aryan Renaissance Society is a small but long-lived white supremacist group that has resembled both a racist skinhead group and a prison clique at times. It has had members from a variety of places, but many came from Texas and New Jersey. Its logo is a phoenix image superimposed with a lightning bolt and a runic symbol.[/quote[
(Posting in this thread rather than starting another since we already talked about BLM here)
I have no idea why you're assuming these guys are racist.
I think the most reasonable assumption is that these guys are into historical wargames, and want to get a tabletop game going. They have Confederate armies and they're looking for Union players.
Well, yeah, of course one is apples and one is oranges. That's how analogies work, you compare two things that aren't the same to find similarities that will reveal information about one or both.
And I don't think I ever said we shouldn't talk about it as a problem, I just think we need to identify the problem with facts and come to realistic conclusions on what the biggest problems are and how to fix them.
"Cases are rare." "Cases are unfortunate mistakes." "are blacks actually oppressed systemically or do they only feel oppressed because they are constantly told they are oppressed."
Your last post did everything it could to minimise this as an issue. It's good that you've changed your mind, but don't pretend you haven't and then blame other people for having taken you at your originaly argument as face value the first time around.
As to the rest of your post - yeah this is largely an issue of an armed US making cops more likely to feel they need to use lethal force, combined with issues of poverty and social breakdown. On top of that you can add a long history of non-punishment for shootings, and institutionalised protection of policemen. I agree with all of those things, and agree with your assessment that it is a very difficult issue to solve. However, the reality remains that these are social failings that produce a death toll every year, and so society needs to work at whatever it can to reduce the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Probably not, but we did recently have a BLM supporter cap a bunch of cops in Dallas.
And many people were quite quick to point out that attack showed that BLM did have an issue with extremism. The mainstream of the movement may not want any kind of violence, but when they use rhetoric that incites the fringes of their movement, and those people in turn make more extreme rhetoric, then that can often lead to violence and extreme acts.
This doesn't discredit the movement entirely, but it does say something about the overall movement that is willing to inflame the issue knowing full well that it might lead to violence from the fringe.
I was think it would be funny if someone posted a "Please do not feed or taunt the animals, they fling poo' sign on the cage the cops have built for them.
)
