I expected better concerning a riot in the South, and by better I mean the protesters getting rolled with enthusiasm by the PoPo.
Especially when this occurred. You block freeways and people in ambulances die and serious stuff happens: "The destruction late Tuesday and early Wednesday included blocking all lanes of Interstate 85 and looting a Walmart on North Tryon Street at about 3:30 a.m. The store was closed early Wednesday, with wooden pallets piled in front of the doors and shopping carts blocking the driveway into the lot.
Three or more tractor trailer trucks were stopped and looted on Interstate 85, and at least two fires were started on the interstate, as the protesters burned items taken from the trucks.
Motorists were reportedly stuck on Interstate 85 for hours at the height of the protests,
A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.
And this is what happens? Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.
djones520 wrote: A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.
The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.
djones520 wrote: A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.
The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.
CNN police conference: firearm recovered, but no book and that witnesses support police statements. Now of course that could be a drop gun etc.
djones520 wrote: A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.
The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.
He was brandishing the weapon at some point... not sure of the when/timeline though.
djones520 wrote: A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.
The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.
It matters not what the facts turn out to be- riot now just to be sure!
The level of destruction and violence being tolerated with the riots is disappointing. Protesting an injustice is commendable; committing injustice is deplorable.
djones520 wrote: A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.
The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.
It matters not what the facts turn out to be- riot now just to be sure!
The level of destruction and violence being tolerated with the riots is disappointing. Protesting an injustice is commendable; committing injustice is deplorable.
Exactly. I say it every time, wait until facts come out before you cast judgement.
There is no excuse what so ever for this type of activity. None at all.
djones520 wrote: A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.
The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.
Only thing I've read on that was his family said he was holding a book, not a gun, and unfortunately, family is the last people you can trust in this type of situation. Their emotions are going to cloud their statements, period.
Shutting down highways is just about method #1 for pissing people off and making them lose sympathy for a cause. Even disregarding safety and emergency issues, making people sit in traffic is a great way to make them infuriated.
That said, at this point I think what we're seeing is less a response to any singlr incident and more people just taking any excuse to vent and make their frustrations heard and felt in the most direct way possible, regardless of how appropriate it may or may not be, as they dont feel their concerns are being adequately responded to in many areas, leading to further social conflict.
I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
curran12 wrote: I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
curran12 wrote: I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
How does that relate to a riot though?
I hope I'm understanding your question correctly, but please correct me if I am not.
But basically, the riot is a flashpoint happening. You have groups that have had the decades of this behavior (not huge amounts, mind, but enough that it is the perception, especially in media) going more or less unchallenged, with the police closing ranks and protecting their own while shooting members of the public. Now I don't have the facts in this case, so really I can't speak to the reality, but the perception is what's important I think. We have an angry population in the area, and one that is seeing what is perceived as another in a pretty high rise in -visible- (note that term in terms of media coverage) shootings of their own, and their recourse is to strike back and not sit back and say 'well maybe this will be the one that goes to complete trial'.
curran12 wrote: I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
How does that relate to a riot though?
Karma. You keep shooting black people at slightest excuse and it adds up. You expect them to just keep accepting it forevfr?
curran12 wrote: I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
How does that relate to a riot though?
Karma. You keep shooting black people at slightest excuse and it adds up. You expect them to just keep accepting it forevfr?
I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.
I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.
curran12 wrote: I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
How does that relate to a riot though?
Karma. You keep shooting black people at slightest excuse and it adds up. You expect them to just keep accepting it forevfr?
I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.
I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.
Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.
Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.
curran12 wrote: I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
How does that relate to a riot though?
Karma. You keep shooting black people at slightest excuse and it adds up. You expect them to just keep accepting it forevfr?
I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.
I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.
Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.
Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.
Yeah, I'll always support protest. The second you start looting Walmarts, or hell, semi's still on the interstate? You've lost every shred of credibility in my eyes though.
I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.
I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.
Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.
Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.
Yeah, I'll always support protest. The second you start looting Walmarts, or hell, semi's still on the interstate? You've lost every shred of credibility in my eyes though.
I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.
I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.
It leads to riots because the infrastructure to organise militant groups isn't there anymore (or yet). Rioting is simply what's available to channel anger into. We might be seeing more Dorners in the future, tho.
And while there are almost certainly people there interested in causing trouble/theft, the problem perpetuates when those people become the brush that the group is painted by. It furthers the feeling of disenfranchisement when their flashpoint of anger is written off as "some people wanting a five finger discount". Not to point out your words specifically, but that's just what happened to be there.
The larger point is that by doing that, it only adds more anger and more to the fire. And, to go back to my original point, furthers the perception that their community is second class and under attack.
The mentality behind these kinds of riots is the same kind of mentality that drives people to vote for Trump.
Long held perceptions of injustice, and a feeling powerlessness will lead people to act in a manner that is contrary to their long-term self interest, be that looting and burning a semi, or putting a check mark next to the donald's name.
I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.
I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.
Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.
Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.
Yeah, I'll always support protest. The second you start looting Walmarts, or hell, semi's still on the interstate? You've lost every shred of credibility in my eyes though.
Over the past year, heck even over the past few weeks, it seems that it's okay to protest. But people think protests have gone to far when:
- you shut down an interstate
- you shut down any road
- you disrupt a public event
- you make a statement anywhere people don't want to hear it
- you kneel during a national anthem
- you have a peaceful protest
- you say something as a politician
It's almost like it's not about the protests at all, and more about a message people don't want to hear.
I don't care if anyone kneels during the national anthem as long as I can still eat my chips and queso during the national anthem. I also have no problem with a peaceful AND LEGAL protest.
I've explained this in a previous thread more than once, but that isn't a "Harvard study" but an unvetted anonymously funded working paper, it was done by an economist with no background in criminal justice, and people that are in the requisite field have called into question his methodology.
Frazzled wrote: I don't care if anyone kneels during the national anthem as long as I can still eat my chips and queso during the national anthem. I also have no problem with a peaceful AND LEGAL protest.
But we run into that perception issue there. If one believes that the law is against them, or has shown little sympathy to what happens to them, why would it matter to a protestor?
"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."
"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."
More evidence of sjw tyranny. Vote for the donald before it's too late!
I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.
I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.
Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.
Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.
Yeah, I'll always support protest. The second you start looting Walmarts, or hell, semi's still on the interstate? You've lost every shred of credibility in my eyes though.
Over the past year, heck even over the past few weeks, it seems that it's okay to protest. But people think protests have gone to far when:
- you shut down an interstate
That's too far. No pass, go to jail.
- you shut down any road
Unless you have permit, that's too far. No pass, go to jail.
- you disrupt a public event
That happens... distrupt all you want. Just don't be surprised to being escorted off the premises.
- you make a statement anywhere people don't want to hear it
wut?
- you kneel during a national anthem
Kap can do whatever the feth he wants. I don't have to watch NFL games.
- you have a peaceful protest
That's kosher yo.
- you say something as a politician
Again... that's kosher.
It's almost like it's not about the protests at all, and more about a message people don't want to hear.
That's a bunch of bovine manure.
People protesting is a time-honored right.
Rioting... however, deserves every bit of scorn possible and their assess arrested.
I've explained this in a previous thread more than once, but that isn't a "Harvard study" but an unvetted anonymously funded working paper, it was done by an economist with no background in criminal justice, and people that are in the requisite field have called into question his methodology.
Been reading this at lunch...
The post's claim that the methodology is flawed has some merits. So, I'll backtrack this...
I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.
I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.
It leads to riots because the infrastructure to organise militant groups isn't there anymore (or yet). Rioting is simply what's available to channel anger into. We might be seeing more Dorners in the future, tho.
Regarding Dorner, I've often wondered over the last two years if his "manifesto" is worth reading again in light of recent events. He had a lot of grievances with the LAPD's culture that seems to align with problems faced by other departments across the country (if I am remembering his writing correctly). I wonder if anything useful could be learned from his final writings regarding that culture and how to change it.
"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."
"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."
"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."
WrentheFaceless wrote: Strange that the ones in Charlotte are getting this out of control, where as the situation in Tulsa seems more outrageous by comparison.
CNN has the black leaders nnacp or something like that saying stop spending money on white peoples buisnesses.... Should all stores owned by white people fire all locals and move? Or stop selling to blacks in protest to this?
I do not understand these people, they get mad and damage stuff then threaten violance unless you agree with them. This is why trump will win, people are getting sick of violence againt them for doing nothing.
I guess the best anolgy I can come up with is.
You are driving home find out someone of your colour got shot for doing something incorrect. So you drive home get your friends and set each others cars on fire break into each others job sites steal then say punish the officer because we said so or we will keep buring our gak..... Poor guys....ya right.
CNN has the black leaders nnacp or something like that saying stop spending money on white peoples buisnesses.... Should all stores owned by white people fire all locals and move? Or stop selling to blacks in protest to this?
Black people on TV can say stupid things too.
I do not understand these people, they get mad and damage stuff then threaten violance unless you agree with them. This is why trump will win, people are getting sick of violence againt them for doing nothing.
You have to understand that this is centuries of oppression and discrimination coming to a boil. This incident may not have warranted a riot. But it was the spark that set off a powder keg.
I guess the best anolgy I can come up with is.
You are driving home find out someone of your colour got shot for doing something incorrect. So you drive home get your friends and set each others cars on fire break into each others job sites steal then say punish the officer because we said so or we will keep buring our gak..... Poor guys....ya right.
This is so ignorant of Black american history I don't even know where to begin. In short, just because blacks are nominally equal under the law doesn't mean they are treated equally. Mistreated groups have a tendency of getting really angry about the their oppression.
Its not ignorant. Thats effectively what happens in a local riot. You don't think the police are being harmed do you? No. Just local businesses and the people in the area.
CNN has the black leaders nnacp or something like that saying stop spending money on white peoples buisnesses.... Should all stores owned by white people fire all locals and move? Or stop selling to blacks in protest to this?
Black people on TV can say stupid things too.
I do not understand these people, they get mad and damage stuff then threaten violance unless you agree with them. This is why trump will win, people are getting sick of violence againt them for doing nothing.
You have to understand that this is centuries of oppression and discrimination coming to a boil. This incident may not have warranted a riot. But it was the spark that set off a powder keg.
I guess the best anolgy I can come up with is.
You are driving home find out someone of your colour got shot for doing something incorrect. So you drive home get your friends and set each others cars on fire break into each others job sites steal then say punish the officer because we said so or we will keep buring our gak..... Poor guys....ya right.
This is so ignorant of Black american history I don't even know where to begin. In short, just because blacks are nominally equal under the law doesn't mean they are treated equally. Mistreated groups have a tendency of getting really angry about the their oppression.
Yes but is buring stealing and commiting crimes really the best way to get what you want? I raised 2 kids and when something went wrong and they responded with threats or throwing things I didnt just say ok your right.
If the black community want things to get better for them breaking their own stuff, driving buisnesses away and creating a profile of highly violent easly angered people is not going to make things better.
Slavery was ended because people saw injustice, things change when the heart of the people change. Doing crimes is never going to fix anything, just make things worse for you.
OgreChubbs wrote: Slavery was ended because people saw injustice, things change when the heart of the people change. Doing crimes is never going to fix anything, just make things worse for you.
Post Exalted. MLK understood this. That the key to changing minds was to change peoples' hearts. When individuals lash out with hate and violence or otherwise seek to inflict harm on someone else they should not be surprised that peoples' hearts harden in response.
To the topic. I guess my point is that riots are not a rational response by those interested in the communittee, unless they themselves are criminals and want t take advantage. Protests-good, Riots-bad.
To the topic. I guess my point is that riots are not a rational response by those interested in the communittee, unless they themselves are criminals and want t take advantage. Protests-good, Riots-bad.
You are right. They are not rational. They are an emotional response.
I dont think anyone would argue with that Fraz, but riots generally dont come about when people are thinking calmly and rationally.
EDIT: that said, sometimes it does also take a riot to get progress. As bad as they were, the 1992 LA riots forced some changes in police procedure and media coverage practices.
CNN has the black leaders nnacp or something like that saying stop spending money on white peoples buisnesses.... Should all stores owned by white people fire all locals and move? Or stop selling to blacks in protest to this?
Black people on TV can say stupid things too.
I do not understand these people, they get mad and damage stuff then threaten violance unless you agree with them. This is why trump will win, people are getting sick of violence againt them for doing nothing.
You have to understand that this is centuries of oppression and discrimination coming to a boil. This incident may not have warranted a riot. But it was the spark that set off a powder keg.
I guess the best anolgy I can come up with is.
You are driving home find out someone of your colour got shot for doing something incorrect. So you drive home get your friends and set each others cars on fire break into each others job sites steal then say punish the officer because we said so or we will keep buring our gak..... Poor guys....ya right.
This is so ignorant of Black american history I don't even know where to begin. In short, just because blacks are nominally equal under the law doesn't mean they are treated equally. Mistreated groups have a tendency of getting really angry about the their oppression.
Yes but is buring stealing and commiting crimes really the best way to get what you want? I raised 2 kids and when something went wrong and they responded with threats or throwing things I didnt just say ok your right.
If the black community want things to get better for them breaking their own stuff, driving buisnesses away and creating a profile of highly violent easly angered people is not going to make things better.
Slavery was ended because people saw injustice, things change when the heart of the people change. Doing crimes is never going to fix anything, just make things worse for you.
A nice thought but that really isn't how the world works. Slavery wasn't ended out of a sense of sympathy for backs. Some abolitionists may have been sympathetic but several were very racist. Slavery was abolished because it was politically convenient for the Union to do so. Same for the civil rights movement. Blacks had been campaigning for equal rights for a long time before MLK came along. What changed? The Soviet Union had been using the treatment of blacks by the US as anti-American propaganda when trying to sway countries to it's cause. Civil rights suddenly became very appealing for the people in charge to implement.
Have blacks not been peacefully protesting the conduct of police officers for years now? Has anything changed? Call me a cynic, but until there is something in it for the people on capitol hill to effect change in our police forces I doubt any form of peaceful protest will change things.
Seriously? Governments stance on civil rights changed because we were concerned about the Soviet Unions opinion? That's a cynical outlook if I ever heard one.
Have blacks not been peacefully protesting the conduct of police officers for years now? Has anything changed? Call me a cynic, but until there is something in it for the people on capitol hill to effect change in our police forces I doubt any form of peaceful protest will change things.
Its inefficient. The rioters are literally crapping on their own neighborhood. They would be more effective rioting in neighborhoods of the municipal elites. Like if you had a riot you woun't riot in the wards in Houston, but in River Oaks and Memorial. Of course the PoPo would take the gloves off then and there would be many many casualties.
Again, my view is not that riots are emotional, but thats they are led by bad actors, often not from the neighborhood. Burning my own neighborhood down is not rational (and by that I mean not sane) unless there is a monetary opportunity for me-hence Walmart and the trucks in this instance. if the local stores and trucks were defended by guys with mossbergs, the riot would turn back into a rowdy protest.
Others may disagree and this is totally my opinion without major support. I'm also kind of chuckling at the thought of someone trying to bring a riot to a Southern neighborhood and going after the residents. It would be Stalingradeqsue. I could say the same of course for most of the neighborhoods in the Inland Empire in Southern California. That was a pretty heavily armed as well.
Have blacks not been peacefully protesting the conduct of police officers for years now? Has anything changed? Call me a cynic, but until there is something in it for the people on capitol hill to effect change in our police forces I doubt any form of peaceful protest will change things.
Its inefficient. The rioters are literally crapping on their own neighborhood. They would be more effective rioting in neighborhoods of the municipal elites. Like if you had a riot you woun't riot in the wards in Houston, but in River Oaks and Memorial. Of course the PoPo would take the gloves off then and there would be many many casualties.
I'm not saying that the rioters are doing the right thing. They're just making their lives worse, like said. But I understand why they are doing it.
Yes, because they've had to put up with so much gak for so many years and the full extent of it is all coming out now thanks to smart phones and the Internet etc. it will only take the slightest spark to trigger riots. It doesn't matter what the person was doing, all they'll see is another black man being gunned down by the cops. And at this stage I don't blame them. Never forget the guy who was lying flat his back, with his hands in the air, completely complying with all orders and was still shot anyway.
I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.
I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.
Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.
Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.
The looters are getting the most out of the useful idiots.
djones520 wrote: A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.
The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.
It's Charlotte. As a former resident, relations between police (any police) and the local black communities...
curran12 wrote: I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
The police shoulder responsibility that a man was brandishing a weapon and approaching them?
feeder wrote: If you think this is specifically about this specific incident, you'd be wrong.
That's just using faulty reasoning to find some basis to excuse violent criminal behavior. The idea that anytime a black person gets shot by cops is now automatically a grave injustice that necessitates and justifies a violent criminal rampage is both patronizing and absurd. Looting and destroying stores isn't by any training the only way or even an effective way to enact governmental reforms.
I'm not sure lamenting that things have come to this point, and holding neglect of the social problems behind it as responsible is the same thing as excusing violent criminal behavior.
curran12 wrote: I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
The police shoulder responsibility that a man was brandishing a weapon and approaching them?
Sure looks like snow on the ground in that picture.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not sure lamenting that things have come to this point, and holding neglect of the social problems behind it as responsible is the same thing as excusing violent criminal behavior.
Neglect of social problems is bad and has been going on for the last 50+ years and it's long past time for politicians to stop using it as a wedge issue to pander for votes and start treating it seriously. Years of neglect didn't go on a violent rampage in Charlotte, people chose to do that and when you deflect the responsibility for that criminal behavior away from the individuals who committed the acts and put on social neglect instead it's excusing/justifying that criminal behavior. The people in the community have every right to be upset and to protest but they don't have the right to break the law, endanger people's lives and destroy property and there's no excuse for that kind of behavior.
Choices are not made in a vacuum, and expecting people to be blind and dumb about the history of law enforcement violence, particularly towards African American communities, that has led to this event is being rather obtuse. I don't see anyone saying rioting is a good thing, or not a crime. Harping on how rioting is bad and criminal, isn't really going to resolve the problem that led to the rioting.
curran12 wrote: I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.
The police shoulder responsibility that a man was brandishing a weapon and approaching them?
Sure looks like snow on the ground in that picture.
It's those late summer snowfalls the south is famous for.
LordofHats wrote: Choices are not made in a vacuum, and expecting people to be blind and dumb about the history of law enforcement violence, particularly towards African American communities, that has led to this event is being rather obtuse. I don't see anyone saying rioting is a good thing, or not a crime. Harping on how rioting is bad and criminal, isn't really going to resolve the problem that led to the rioting.
Rioting isn't going to solve the problem that contributed to the riot either. Rioting will hep nothing and will only make matters worse. Ig a group feels oppressed or mistreated by the police and/or are falsely stereotypes as dangerous criminals having them go on a violent rampage and threaten to continue the violent rampage only puts that group in a negative light as they commit wrongdoing to protest wrongdoing. The absurdity of black people protesting police brutality by going ons rampage that requires riot cops to put down the unrest should be obvious to everyone.
My OT Stan Marsh moment of today;
People discriminating against Muslims because of recent terror attacks is wrong and people should not be judged by the actions of a small minority. No argument there. But when it comes to the police? feth those guys. Even when they shoot someone brandishing a gun that was recovered at the scene. Because not judging people you have an axe to grind against is hard.
Prestor Jon wrote: Rioting isn't going to solve the problem that contributed to the riot either.
Really? Because there was an awful lot of rioting back during the Civil Rights era, which was no where near as peaceful as your history book told you and it worked.
Sitting and waiting has gotten them nothing. Rising up and speaking out merely has them dismissed with inane prattle like "all lives matter."
They have been ignored and belittled at every attempt, and years of protest has achieved little more than occasional media coverage between "Hillary's Emails" and "Look what Trump said now" and "Look how cute Kim and Kanye's baby is."
It really should be abundantly obvious at this point that this;
Spoiler:
Isn't going to go away by telling them to stop breaking the law. I don't think they care what the law says, because they don't think the law does them any good (and they have a pretty good case for it). But please. Go on and preach to us about how rioting is bad. Maybe there's some who didn't know that before entering this thread.
Prestor Jon wrote: Years of neglect didn't go on a violent rampage in Charlotte, people chose to do that and when you deflect the responsibility for that criminal behavior away from the individuals who committed the acts and put on social neglect instead it's excusing/justifying that criminal behavior.
Thing is, if you go around calling people ugly then you aren't making anyone punch you in the mouth. Each person still has a choice, and the one who does decide to punch you in the mouth has broken the law. But you'd be an incredible kind of idiot if you wandered around calling people ugly and then being surprised when someone did punch you in the mouth. Because while each person makes their own choice, obviously certain kinds of choices are going to be much more common under some circumstances.
Recognising that a long history of poor relations between police and the black community, including a lot of needless deaths, has produced a circumstance where a lot more black people are inclined to riot is, well, kind of obvious. It doesn't excuse the riots, it just recognises it is what it is, and if you don't want future riots, then maybe working on that relationship might be a good starting point (including maybe not shooting so many people).
In a simple attempt to lighten the mood of this very heavy subject, it looks like there'll be a lot more citizens wearing 'Batum' jerseys in the near future.
TheCustomLime wrote: This is so ignorant of Black american history I don't even know where to begin. In short, just because blacks are nominally equal under the law doesn't mean they are treated equally. Mistreated groups have a tendency of getting really angry about the their oppression.
Equality under law is nice in theory but are there really countries where minorities ARE treated equally? None come to mind. Certainly not even in Finland. And blacks in america have had long and bloody history.
While the riots are not good it's not unexpected. Trust on both sides has shrank to stage any spark can ignite this kind of behavior.
feeder wrote: If you think this is specifically about this specific incident, you'd be wrong.
That's just using faulty reasoning to find some basis to excuse violent criminal behavior. The idea that anytime a black person gets shot by cops is now automatically a grave injustice that necessitates and justifies a violent criminal rampage is both patronizing and absurd. Looting and destroying stores isn't by any training the only way or even an effective way to enact governmental reforms.
Justifies? No. Efficient? No. But we are talking about EMOTIONS here. Humans are emotional. Very few can honestly say they don't let emotions decide their actions at all. Frankly I know no such person. And when emotions take control...Well rationality, logic and efficiency are forgotten.
I really don't get why you guys in America get riots all over the place time and time again. On top of that the people that do riot are only there to loot and pillage most of the time. These people don't riot for the person shot, but riot for the sake of rioting and stolen loot most of the time.
Hell they are broadening their stereotypes even further to the point you mention riots that people immediately think of afro-americans pillaging and looting.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: I really don't get why you guys in America get riots all over the place time and time again.
I don't know how other fields might identify it, but Historians call it the "Revolutionary Spirit." It's a concept that defines a culturally ingrained value among Americans that some have argued explains our habit of engaging in radical action against perceived domestic injustice. It's connected to why a groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Sovereign Citizens came into existence, the persistence of Confederate Pride in the South, and the long history of race based riots in many US cities.
On top of that the people that do riot are only there to loot and pillage most of the time. These people don't riot for the person shot, but riot for the sake of rioting and stolen loot most of the time.
Earlier this year there were riots in Salt Lake City resulting from the shooting of a 17 year old Somali refugee. Last year there were riots in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray. Ferguson in 2014 and 2015. The Oakland Riots in 2009. The Toledo Riot in 2005. Most of these were spawned by the shootings of young black men by law enforcement (Toledo occurred when some Neo-Nazis marched through a black neighborhood). Rioting isn't a spontaneous event of violence in this context, or an excuse to loot and pillage. It's part of the US' culture concerned race relations. Poor urban communities riot when they are misgoverned and ignored. It is indeed not just about the person shot. It's about the overarching state of race relations, which is an especially sensitive topic for black Americans. EDIT: If you remember the Hague Riot that occurred in 2015, it is similar, but imagine a history of such events spanning over 100 years.
I highly suggest you read a few books before assuming this is as simple as some people wanting to have fun at the expense of others. I suggest At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape, and Resistance--A New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power by Danielle L. McGuire for background information, and The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander and Cornel West for a very good description of the current state of things and why it's become such a problem.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: I do not assume it's that simple. I kinda blanked and forgot to write down some things.
I actually was talking about the view of them in media and other countries. Do they just not care?
I get the frustration for those people after so many time but I just don't get the hostility towards people who have nothing to do with this.
They lose my respect when they damage their own communities.
The fact blacks get shot at a higher rate per head of population is, I'm sure, in no small amount caused by the higher crime rate among black communities.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: I do not assume it's that simple. I kinda blanked and forgot to write down some things.
Apologies then.
I actually was talking about the view of them in media and other countries. Do they just not care?
I get the frustration for those people after so many time but I just don't get the hostility towards people who have nothing to do with this.
This is the result of 150+ years of trying to use band aids to fix one of the most perplexing and elusive injustices in America, and our own personal original sin (slavery). This riot is a small part of a much wider nation spanning social problem, and it's one Americans have at large ignored at most turns. Even when making progress in events like the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we have never full redressed the repercussions of what began over 200 years ago. We often do just enough to fix surface issues, and then promptly turned our attention elsewhere. We pretend that electing a black president means racism is dead, and that just because we aren't racist means we have no responsibility to fix in the present what was left unfixed in the past.
There is no hostility towards people who have nothing to do with it, because there is no one in this country who has nothing to do with it. The wealth of this nation began with billions of dollars in chattel*. We've all benefited from that. It's at the very core of where this country came from, and this just goes back to it. African American communities live in rampant poverty in no small part because American social policy put them there to begin with, and allowed them to continue to languish in that space even forcing them to exist in it for the benefit of other groups. The social conditions in these communities have bred crime and resentment, and we've simultaneously built very harsh laws that punish a lot of things in horrible disproportion for the actual deed to further that resentment and more crime. And for all this we choose to blame no one but these communities themselves because its a hell of a lot easier to say black people are lazy criminals who like to destroy their own community than it is to accept that over 200 years of the American past has given them little else.
*This number is based on James Huston's examination of slavery in Calculating the Value of the Union. Huston used a conservative estimate of the property value of the slaves held by white Americans that held that by 1850, the value of slaves was in excess of $3,000,000,000, a sum greater than the value of all American banks, shipping, railroads, textiles, and livestock put together.
EDIT EDIT: And this post came out a hell of a lot more depressing than we really wanted it to be...
feeder wrote: If you think this is specifically about this specific incident, you'd be wrong.
Alleged brother calls all white people devils.
Watch the video above. (Warning: Graphic language).
In it, he says, before angrily walking away from reporters: “I just know that all white people are f-cking devils.” Then he adds, “All white cops are f-cking devils, and white people.”
LordofHats wrote: And for all this we choose to blame no one but these communities themselves because its a hell of a lot easier to say black people are lazy criminals who like to destroy their own community than it is to accept that over 200 years of the American past has given them little else.
Maybe you're referring to posts like mine when you say that, so I'll clarify my thoughts. I think black people are more likely to live in poor and gakky communities, thus are more likely to commit crimes and thus are more likely to be on the receiving end of police violence.
I don't blame the black people for that, I don't think black people are lazy criminals, certainly none of the ones I met while living in the US gave that impression.
I just think the way the problem is approached is so often arse backwards. Take race out of the equation and it's a problem in a lot of places that people who grew up in crap environments are less likely to make something good out of their lives and are more likely to end up with crippling drug problems, violence, thieving and having more run ins with the cops.
So it seems to me that it's less a race problem and more a socio-economic problem, and while a racist history has made it so that there's more blacks in poor socio-economic positions in this day and age it's not at it's core a racism issue and trying to approach it as a racism issue is less productive than trying to approach it as a socio-economic issue.
I don't think you can blame cops for shooting more black civilians when more black civilians are killing more civilians and it seems to me the solution to that problem is take the emphasis away from blacks being victimised by the cops and put it back on how can we improve these communities to reduce crime wholesale. (though you can certainly raise the issue of cops shooting anyone in the first place, that's another whole discussion that gets in to the gun debate)
LordofHats wrote: Choices are not made in a vacuum, and expecting people to be blind and dumb about the history of law enforcement violence, particularly towards African American communities, that has led to this event is being rather obtuse. I don't see anyone saying rioting is a good thing, or not a crime. Harping on how rioting is bad and criminal, isn't really going to resolve the problem that led to the rioting.
This a thousand times.
As was said earlier, the chickens are well and truly coming home to roost. Rightly or wrongly, African Americans think they're not getting a fair roll of the dice when it comes to criminal justice, and I'm only surprised that this didn't happen sooner.
As we know, North Carolina's relationship with African Americans is a wretched history of slavery, oppression, murder and terror during reconstruction, Klan violence, and further terror and murder during the civil rights era.
That legacy, that history, does not just disappear overnight.
Robert F Williams was a controversial figure, but I would recommended reading his book 'Negroes with guns.' It's an account of the civil rights movement in North Carolina, the violence inflicted on African Americans, their attempts to arm themselves for self-defence (the local police chief, who had links to the Klan, was 'surprisingly' reluctant to let them have guns, and is a real eye opener, especially the bit when they're trying and failing to get help from the NRA, that fearless protector of the 2nd amendment...
Moving on, a lot of people seem to be claiming that protest and action never changed anything.
Because sitting around with your thumbs up your rear has clearly done a lot of good for African Americans. We really need a sarcasm moticon on dakka.
Prestor Jon wrote: Rioting isn't going to solve the problem that contributed to the riot either.
Really? Because there was an awful lot of rioting back during the Civil Rights era, which was no where near as peaceful as your history book told you and it worked.
Sitting and waiting has gotten them nothing. Rising up and speaking out merely has them dismissed with inane prattle like "all lives matter."
They have been ignored and belittled at every attempt, and years of protest has achieved little more than occasional media coverage between "Hillary's Emails" and "Look what Trump said now" and "Look how cute Kim and Kanye's baby is."
It really should be abundantly obvious at this point that this;
Spoiler:
Isn't going to go away by telling them to stop breaking the law. I don't think they care what the law says, because they don't think the law does them any good (and they have a pretty good case for it). But please. Go on and preach to us about how rioting is bad. Maybe there's some who didn't know that before entering this thread.
I never claimed that anyone in this thread didn't know that rioting was criminal behavior and bad for society and deflecting to that straw man isn't helpful for civil discourse. Throwing childish self destructive temper tantrums isn't the way to convince people to take you seriously or to enact governmental reforms. The notion that looting and burning down walmarts is an effective way to reduce racially discriminatory police brutality would be laughable instead of incredulously saddening since it's so ardently defended as such in this thread.
If you think the Civil Rights Act was some sort of Danegeld that was extorted from the federal government via violent urban rampages you're wrong. MLK didn't deliberately avoid having violence in the movement and Malcolm X didn't renounce violence in his later years because it was really super effective.
Every police department in the US, be it the municipal, county or state level is subject to civil authority oversight. Police chiefs, mayors, city councils they could all enact meaningful policy reforms. Every major city in the US has a large enough black population that if that demographic group worked together to form the core of a voting bloc that prioritizing police reforms candidates and incumbent politicians would have to listen to them. Of course working to build a unified political movement, tabulating a list of grievances formulating policy reforms that address them and prioritizing them in preparation of negotiations with politicians and police unions and maintaining focus and enthusiasm in the movement is hard work and won't get a lot of media attention but it's a lot more effective than arson. It's also a lot less fun than getting together with friends and strangers to go wilding and loot and burn buildings on tv.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: I do not assume it's that simple. I kinda blanked and forgot to write down some things.
Apologies then.
I actually was talking about the view of them in media and other countries. Do they just not care?
I get the frustration for those people after so many time but I just don't get the hostility towards people who have nothing to do with this.
This is the result of 150+ years of trying to use band aids to fix one of the most perplexing and elusive injustices in America, and our own personal original sin (slavery). This riot is a small part of a much wider nation spanning social problem, and it's one Americans have at large ignored at most turns. Even when making progress in events like the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we have never full redressed the repercussions of what began over 200 years ago. We often do just enough to fix surface issues, and then promptly turned our attention elsewhere. We pretend that electing a black president means racism is dead, and that just because we aren't racist means we have no responsibility to fix in the present what was left unfixed in the past.
There is no hostility towards people who have nothing to do with it, because there is no one in this country who has nothing to do with it. The wealth of this nation began with billions of dollars in chattel*. We've all benefited from that. It's at the very core of where this country came from, and this just goes back to it. African American communities live in rampant poverty in no small part because American social policy put them there to begin with, and allowed them to continue to languish in that space even forcing them to exist in it for the benefit of other groups. The social conditions in these communities have bred crime and resentment, and we've simultaneously built very harsh laws that punish a lot of things in horrible disproportion for the actual deed to further that resentment and more crime. And for all this we choose to blame no one but these communities themselves because its a hell of a lot easier to say black people are lazy criminals who like to destroy their own community than it is to accept that over 200 years of the American past has given them little else.
*This number is based on James Huston's examination of slavery in Calculating the Value of the Union. Huston used a conservative estimate of the property value of the slaves held by white Americans that held that by 1850, the value of slaves was in excess of $3,000,000,000, a sum greater than the value of all American banks, shipping, railroads, textiles, and livestock put together.
EDIT EDIT: And this post came out a hell of a lot more depressing than we really wanted it to be...
It's only depressing if you buy into the inane concept that we should feel some sort of collective guilt over actions done by other people who are now long dead.
Prestor Jon wrote: Years of neglect didn't go on a violent rampage in Charlotte, people chose to do that and when you deflect the responsibility for that criminal behavior away from the individuals who committed the acts and put on social neglect instead it's excusing/justifying that criminal behavior.
Thing is, if you go around calling people ugly then you aren't making anyone punch you in the mouth. Each person still has a choice, and the one who does decide to punch you in the mouth has broken the law. But you'd be an incredible kind of idiot if you wandered around calling people ugly and then being surprised when someone did punch you in the mouth. Because while each person makes their own choice, obviously certain kinds of choices are going to be much more common under some circumstances.
Recognising that a long history of poor relations between police and the black community, including a lot of needless deaths, has produced a circumstance where a lot more black people are inclined to riot is, well, kind of obvious. It doesn't excuse the riots, it just recognises it is what it is, and if you don't want future riots, then maybe working on that relationship might be a good starting point (including maybe not shooting so many people).
It may not excuse the riots but that sentiment is very patronizing and racist. Are black people somehow incapable of refraining from burning down stores and rioting every time they get emotional over a social issue? Is there some unwritten social rule that states how many buildings they have to vandalize and destroy in order for their grievances to suddenly be solved with government action? What other pressing social issues can we solve by torching parts of our cities? If it works for police brutality let's keep doing it and fix everything. Perhaps if we weren't readily accepting of actions that support the angry black stereotype it wouldn't be so easy for the underlying problems to be lost in the condemnation of their petulant criminal tantrums.
Dreadwinter wrote: It's those late summer snowfalls the south is famous for.
Image has been removed
Reminds me of the Michael Brown incident...where a video of a black man harrassing an elderly white man started making the rounds, falsely claiming that it was Michael Brown to 'prove' he was a thug and deserving of what he got
Automatically Appended Next Post: Funny...when there are riots by white people in response to their sports team winning or losing, you don't hear the same attitude...
Reminds me of the Michael Brown incident...where a video of a black man harrassing an elderly white man started making the rounds, falsely claiming that it was Michael Brown to 'prove' he was a thug and deserving of what he got
I like the part where the media interviewed his fellow criminal who started the "hands up don't shoot" nonsense.
Funny...when there are riots by white people in response to their sports team winning or losing, you don't hear the same attitude...
You don't actually see sports riots by white people in the US often. Maybe in Yankee land.
Dreadwinter wrote: It's those late summer snowfalls the south is famous for.
Image has been removed
Reminds me of the Michael Brown incident...where a video of a black man harrassing an elderly white man started making the rounds, falsely claiming that it was Michael Brown to 'prove' he was a thug and deserving of what he got
Automatically Appended Next Post: Funny...when there are riots by white people in response to their sports team winning or losing, you don't hear the same attitude...
Well then maybe you aren't listening.
I love the racial white washing in your statement though.
Reminds me of the Michael Brown incident...where a video of a black man harrassing an elderly white man started making the rounds, falsely claiming that it was Michael Brown to 'prove' he was a thug and deserving of what he got
I like the part where the media interviewed his fellow criminal who started the "hands up don't shoot" nonsense.
Funny...when there are riots by white people in response to their sports team winning or losing, you don't hear the same attitude...
You don't actually see sports riots by white people in the US often. Maybe in Yankee land.
Most recent incident that comes to mind is the riot in Vancouver over the Canucks.
Reminds me of the Michael Brown incident...where a video of a black man harrassing an elderly white man started making the rounds, falsely claiming that it was Michael Brown to 'prove' he was a thug and deserving of what he got
I like the part where the media interviewed his fellow criminal who started the "hands up don't shoot" nonsense.
Funny...when there are riots by white people in response to their sports team winning or losing, you don't hear the same attitude...
You don't actually see sports riots by white people in the US often. Maybe in Yankee land.
Most recent incident that comes to mind is the riot in Vancouver over the Canucks.
A Canadian riot? A Canadian riot would be more polite than a NY subway.
d-usa wrote: Joking while white people light a vehicle on fire? Congrats on proving the point.
Congrats on having the sense of humor of a small boll weevil. Also your statement is racist and offensive. The blanket use of "white people" is demeaning of their culture. Those are Maple-Americans. Half the people I work with are Canadian. They would understand completely.
d-usa wrote: Joking while white people light a vehicle on fire? Congrats on proving the point.
Congrats on having the sense of humor of a small boll weevil. Also your statement is racist and offensive. The blanket use of "white people" is demeaning of their culture. Those are Maple-Americans. Half the people I work with are Canadian. They would understand completely.
Also, not in the US, so there is that....
But, again, never let the facts get in the way of outrage and an excuse to riot.
Video of a white man being beaten in a parking garage while begging for his life.
Looks like the SJWs are getting what they want. I won't expect the media to cover this...they'll be sure to pick it up once someone starts shooting these racist thugs. Then, it'll be nothing but baby pictures of the attackers, gun control banter, and more anti-white male rhetoric.
Video of a white man being beaten in a parking garage while begging for his life.
Looks like the SJWs are getting what they want. I won't expect the media to cover this...they'll be sure to pick it up once someone starts shooting these racist thugs. Then, it'll be nothing but baby pictures of the attackers, gun control banter, and more anti-white male rhetoric.
And conservatives want uppity blacks to know their place and the return of lynch mobs to remind them of what that place is.
Just to bring the stupid arguments about stupid stereotypes and SJW complaints full circle.
TheCustomLime wrote: Because twitter is a reliable and fact checked source of news.
You doubt the video? What about it seems fake/wrong/whatever to you?
Honestly curious.
I don't doubt it's real. I'm just wondering if it's from Charlotte. Sometimes people use videos from other incidents and post it as evidence of whatever point they are trying to make.
Video of a white man being beaten in a parking garage while begging for his life.
Looks like the SJWs are getting what they want. I won't expect the media to cover this...they'll be sure to pick it up once someone starts shooting these racist thugs. Then, it'll be nothing but baby pictures of the attackers, gun control banter, and more anti-white male rhetoric.
And conservatives want uppity blacks to know their place and the return of lynch mobs to remind them of what that place is.
Just to bring the stupid arguments about stupid stereotypes and SJW complaints full circle.
Prestor Jon wrote: Years of neglect didn't go on a violent rampage in Charlotte, people chose to do that and when you deflect the responsibility for that criminal behavior away from the individuals who committed the acts and put on social neglect instead it's excusing/justifying that criminal behavior.
Thing is, if you go around calling people ugly then you aren't making anyone punch you in the mouth. Each person still has a choice, and the one who does decide to punch you in the mouth has broken the law. But you'd be an incredible kind of idiot if you wandered around calling people ugly and then being surprised when someone did punch you in the mouth. Because while each person makes their own choice, obviously certain kinds of choices are going to be much more common under some circumstances.
Recognising that a long history of poor relations between police and the black community, including a lot of needless deaths, has produced a circumstance where a lot more black people are inclined to riot is, well, kind of obvious. It doesn't excuse the riots, it just recognises it is what it is, and if you don't want future riots, then maybe working on that relationship might be a good starting point (including maybe not shooting so many people).
It may not excuse the riots but that sentiment is very patronizing and racist. Are black people somehow incapable of refraining from burning down stores and rioting every time they get emotional over a social issue? Is there some unwritten social rule that states how many buildings they have to vandalize and destroy in order for their grievances to suddenly be solved with government action? What other pressing social issues can we solve by torching parts of our cities? If it works for police brutality let's keep doing it and fix everything. Perhaps if we weren't readily accepting of actions that support the angry black stereotype it wouldn't be so easy for the underlying problems to be lost in the condemnation of their petulant criminal tantrums.
"Petulant criminal tantrums"... give me a break man. I hope you realize that it took under 20 or 30 years of "injustice" against certain white people for rioting to take place. You now pretty much enjoy the result of those riots. Sad thing is, after well over 100 years, you STILL don't want to listen. Instead of actually listening to the grievances of the community, politicians, the media, and many people are continuing the same line of "now's not a good time" or "that isn't the appropriate means of protesting" Well what fething is??
TheCustomLime wrote: Because twitter is a reliable and fact checked source of news.
You doubt the video? What about it seems fake/wrong/whatever to you?
Honestly curious.
I don't doubt it's real. I'm just wondering if it's from Charlotte. Sometimes people use videos from other incidents and post it as evidence of whatever point they are trying to make.
Prestor Jon wrote: Years of neglect didn't go on a violent rampage in Charlotte, people chose to do that and when you deflect the responsibility for that criminal behavior away from the individuals who committed the acts and put on social neglect instead it's excusing/justifying that criminal behavior.
Thing is, if you go around calling people ugly then you aren't making anyone punch you in the mouth. Each person still has a choice, and the one who does decide to punch you in the mouth has broken the law. But you'd be an incredible kind of idiot if you wandered around calling people ugly and then being surprised when someone did punch you in the mouth. Because while each person makes their own choice, obviously certain kinds of choices are going to be much more common under some circumstances.
Recognising that a long history of poor relations between police and the black community, including a lot of needless deaths, has produced a circumstance where a lot more black people are inclined to riot is, well, kind of obvious. It doesn't excuse the riots, it just recognises it is what it is, and if you don't want future riots, then maybe working on that relationship might be a good starting point (including maybe not shooting so many people).
It may not excuse the riots but that sentiment is very patronizing and racist. Are black people somehow incapable of refraining from burning down stores and rioting every time they get emotional over a social issue? Is there some unwritten social rule that states how many buildings they have to vandalize and destroy in order for their grievances to suddenly be solved with government action? What other pressing social issues can we solve by torching parts of our cities? If it works for police brutality let's keep doing it and fix everything. Perhaps if we weren't readily accepting of actions that support the angry black stereotype it wouldn't be so easy for the underlying problems to be lost in the condemnation of their petulant criminal tantrums.
"Petulant criminal tantrums"... give me a break man. I hope you realize that it took under 20 or 30 years of "injustice" against certain white people for rioting to take place. You now pretty much enjoy the result of those riots. Sad thing is, after well over 100 years, you STILL don't want to listen. Instead of actually listening to the grievances of the community, politicians, the media, and many people are continuing the same line of "now's not a good time" or "that isn't the appropriate means of protesting" Well what fething is??
so your argument is that looting trucks on the interstate and looting and burning down a Walmart is the appropriate method of protest? Or is your argument that it's ok to loot and burn down stores as long as "social injustice" made you do it? Or is your argument that the only way for a large demographic group of voters to convince elected officials that are in charge of municipalities and states to enact police reforms is by committing acts I'd criminal violence in the streets? Or is your argument that we shouldn't expect certain demographic groups to behave in a reasonable law abiding manner because there's some sort of excuse or justification that makes it ok to set such pathetically low expectations on them?
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
Lee didn't burn down Richmond or Atlanta in protest of DC. Maybe someone needs to give these guys a lesson on targeting in conjunction with a campaign plan designed to bring the desired endstate.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
Only history will judge my riots? Cool beans but when did we move riots out of the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system? If only history can judge me did we get rid of the statute of limitations as well? How much of a city do we have to raze in a riot to get the improvement we want? Do we go on an overall percentage basis or is there a magic number of stores we have to burn down? Does it matter what city we riot in? Is there a city size requirement? Is it all written down somewhere?
Prestor Jon wrote: It may not excuse the riots but that sentiment is very patronizing and racist. Are black people somehow incapable of refraining from burning down stores and rioting every time they get emotional over a social issue? Is there some unwritten social rule that states how many buildings they have to vandalize and destroy in order for their grievances to suddenly be solved with government action? What other pressing social issues can we solve by torching parts of our cities? If it works for police brutality let's keep doing it and fix everything. Perhaps if we weren't readily accepting of actions that support the angry black stereotype it wouldn't be so easy for the underlying problems to be lost in the condemnation of their petulant criminal tantrums.
Who says it's exclusive black trait? Newsflash: It's universal.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
Only history will judge my riots? Cool beans but when did we move riots out of the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system? If only history can judge me did we get rid of the statute of limitations as well? How much of a city do we have to raze in a riot to get the improvement we want? Do we go on an overall percentage basis or is there a magic number of stores we have to burn down? Does it matter what city we riot in? Is there a city size requirement? Is it all written down somewhere?
Purple bookshelf, third row, fifth book from the right, Page 153, third paragraph.
Prestor Jon wrote: It may not excuse the riots but that sentiment is very patronizing and racist. Are black people somehow incapable of refraining from burning down stores and rioting every time they get emotional over a social issue? Is there some unwritten social rule that states how many buildings they have to vandalize and destroy in order for their grievances to suddenly be solved with government action? What other pressing social issues can we solve by torching parts of our cities? If it works for police brutality let's keep doing it and fix everything. Perhaps if we weren't readily accepting of actions that support the angry black stereotype it wouldn't be so easy for the underlying problems to be lost in the condemnation of their petulant criminal tantrums.
Who says it's exclusive black trait? Newsflash: It's universal.
No one said that. This thread isn't about riots in general it's about the current riots in Charlotte which are predominately being committed by a specific demographic group in the name of a specific grievance/issue so that is the context for the posts in the thread.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
Only history will judge my riots? Cool beans but when did we move riots out of the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system? If only history can judge me did we get rid of the statute of limitations as well? How much of a city do we have to raze in a riot to get the improvement we want? Do we go on an overall percentage basis or is there a magic number of stores we have to burn down? Does it matter what city we riot in? Is there a city size requirement? Is it all written down somewhere?
Purple bookshelf, third row, fifth book from the right, Page 153, third paragraph.
Which purple bookcase? Are you counting rows from the top or the bottom?
Because sitting around with your thumbs up your rear has clearly done a lot of good for African Americans. We really need a sarcasm moticon on dakka.
The problem of course is, most of us could care less if there is a riot. It doesn't harm us, makes the rioters look bad, and is great TV.
Well, except that now we are talking about it and before we weren't. In that sense, I guess it worked?
How has it worked again? One person is dead so far. Stores have been looted-are they going to come back? Are hearts softened now that they've seen people terrorized on the freeway?
Because sitting around with your thumbs up your rear has clearly done a lot of good for African Americans. We really need a sarcasm moticon on dakka.
The problem of course is, most of us could care less if there is a riot. It doesn't harm us, makes the rioters look bad, and is great TV.
Well, except that now we are talking about it and before we weren't. In that sense, I guess it worked?
In the same sense that a terrorist bombing woks, I suppose. Again, the point isn't that there may be significant issues that need discussion but whether we, as a society, want to encourage this method for the subject.
Some of the arguments advanced, that whites are allowed to do it, that people upset about this don't want any inconvenient speech, are pure deflection. No one is arguing that some violent rioting and looting is okay, depending on race. And this incident is completely separate from peaceful protests (even contentious ones).
One common element in these riots is that they are flaring in areas where relations between a predominately minority, low income community and law enforcement is strained. The effect is that these same communities suffer further. Now, it is worthwhile to understand how it got to this point and see how these situations may be addressed to encourage greater cooperation and help these communities, but justifying the actions of a violent, destructive element hardly seems productive.
Trying to draw parallels to the American revolution only works if you almost completely throw out the history leading up to it and, in that sense, make it comparable with just about every other conflict ever.
Civil Rights gets closer, sort of, but still ignores that the fight was about codified discrimination not just a perception of being treated unfairly, a pretty major difference since the laws can be readily identified as targets.
Only liberals can get trigger warnings? That's the kind of oppressive second class citizen treatment that leads to riots.
You should peacefully protest instead. Don't expect any support for your plight if you throw a petty tantrum over your lack of trigger warnings.
But if I don't throw a tantrum and burn down some stores and threaten to do it again if I don't get my way I'll never get people to take the issue seriously and enact meaningful change. What if I only burn down small stores or only stores that are owned by people of the same ethnicity as those whom I fee oppressed by would that be more palatable?
Only liberals can get trigger warnings? That's the kind of oppressive second class citizen treatment that leads to riots.
You should peacefully protest instead. Don't expect any support for your plight if you throw a petty tantrum over your lack of trigger warnings.
But if I don't throw a tantrum and burn down some stores and threaten to do it again if I don't get my way I'll never get people to take the issue seriously and enact meaningful change. What if I only burn down small stores or only stores that are owned by people of the same ethnicity as those whom I fee oppressed by would that be more palatable?
Less palatable. You and your angry mob should spontaneously walk across town to the trigger-warning-rich areas and burn and loot there instead.
Alright, so one of the whole BLM movement's driving principles is that black people/men are shot disproportionately [by [white] police] and for little/no provocation.
In this particular situation:
An armed black man did not respond to police demands and as a result was shot and killed by multiracial police officers.
There are complications for this story, involving a family member of the victim who has claimed that he was quietly reading a book, versus a police report that says he jumped out of a car with a gun. So far, however, the correct/accepted narrative still seems to be black cop shot armed black man.
So in response to black cop shooting armed black man, the correct response or acceptable response is to have multiple nights of riots including looting of retail stores and unrelated property damage, hurt police officers.
In my opinion, it's amazing that more police officers aren't shooting more rioters.
I think it's to the point that they feel they have nothing left to lose. Peaceful protests haven't done anything. Riots at least get people talking about it.
Especially since there is still systemetic and widespread racism. It's just hidden behind plausible deniability. Black candidates for jobs (especially if they have a black sounding name) are less likely to get a call back. Black defendants are more likely to be found guilty and on average receive a much harsher penalty than whites do.
Part is socieo-economic, but the racism in the hiring department doesn't help that. Plus when you hear about police departments preying on inhabitants for money...it's always the poor areas you hear about them doing it to.
sourclams wrote: Alright, so one of the whole BLM movement's driving principles is that black people/men are shot disproportionately [by [white] police] and for little/no provocation.
In this particular situation:
An armed black man did not respond to police demands and as a result was shot and killed by multiracial police officers.
There are complications for this story, involving a family member of the victim who has claimed that he was quietly reading a book, versus a police report that says he jumped out of a car with a gun. So far, however, the correct/accepted narrative still seems to be black cop shot armed black man.
So in response to black cop shooting armed black man, the correct response or acceptable response is to have multiple nights of riots including looting of retail stores and unrelated property damage, hurt police officers.
In my opinion, it's amazing that more police officers aren't shooting more rioters.
Highlighted in orange is the problem with your whole post. BLM never really cared about the color of the cop, instead, they believe black people are treated poorly (and disproportionately shot) by cops. The color of the cop is not the issue. The perception cops treat black people poorly is.
Sublime wrote:'Cause everybody in the hood has had it up to here
It's getting harder, and harder, and harder each and every year
Some kids went in a store with their mother
I saw her when she came out she was gettin' some Pampers
They said it was for the black man
They said it was for the Mexican
And not for the white man
But if you look at the streets, it wasn't about Rodney King
In this fethed-up situation and these fethed-up police
It's about comin' up and stayin' on top
And screamin' 1-8-7 on a mother fuckin' cop
It's not in the paper, it's on the wall
I was a kid when this song was new, and I'm almost old now.
I don't condone the riots, but I'm not all surprised or indignant about them.
Plus, we riot when our hockey teams lose, and sometimes even when they win. Mob mentality is a hell of a thing.
Did you ever notice they always say the bad apples are not the locals? The hotels/ motels must make a killing when these riots happen. Because I never see any tents or anything during the day.
Now that I think about it the must bring a huge ammount of money to the community with them. They would need to buy food from grocrie/ resturants ect. Unless they brought food with them but if that was the case they would have to know how long they would stay outraged for.
OgreChubbs wrote: Did you ever notice they always say the bad apples are not the locals? The hotels/ motels must make a killing when these riots happen. Because I never see any tents or anything during the day.
Did you think it was just a coincidence that hotels rarely burn down in riots?
I never claimed that anyone in this thread didn't know that rioting was criminal behavior and bad for society and deflecting to that straw man isn't helpful for civil discourse.
Being purposefully obtuse isn't helpful for civil discourse.
Throwing childish self destructive temper tantrums isn't the way to convince people to take you seriously or to enact governmental reforms.
The Arab Spring wasn't that long ago was it?
If you think the Civil Rights Act was some sort of Danegeld that was extorted from the federal government via violent urban rampages you're wrong.
Someone doesn't remember the Long Hot Summer of 1967, not that it gets much attention in history books.
Of course working to build a unified political movement,
Tried that. People treat it like a circus show. On this very board people treat it like a circus show.
It's only depressing if you buy into the inane concept that we should feel some sort of collective guilt over actions done by other people who are now long dead.
There you go being obtuse again, and oh look shoving words into peoples mouths too! Now all you have to do is call me a bleeding heart liberal and you win the trifecta!
So what exactly *do* these rioters want?
Change. What kind of change? They probably don't really know. These things happen because of a deeper sense of frustration, not because of a concise strategy. Charlotte isn't really a pinnacle of great police relations. Much like Ferguson, there's a lot of very heavy handed police tactics and a lot of discontent with the state of things in the black communities. The shooting is as an earlier poster tried to explain just a flash point.
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Maybe they shouldn't vote for the same politicians in the same party year after year and expect change?
...this right here.
One of the most useful things about a book I mentioned earlier (The New Jim Crow) is the way it pointedly criticizes Republican politicians for beginning the massive upswing in incarceration of young black men. It also points a very angry finger at groups like the National Black Caucus and the NAACP, for prioritizing social policies like Affirmative Action that help very few members of Black Communities, and becoming a watchdog for a sort of Black social elite within Black communities that doesn't do enough to help the communities at large.
Yes. The current political apparatus of the US isn't doing anything, but their options are pretty much vote for the groups that at least pay them lip service, or vote for the groups that demonize them and run on veiled racism. It's crappy choice but the choice they're going to make is rather obvious.
And also, advocate for the changes you want by engaging the process.
The process is part of the problem for them. Law enforcement disproportionately affects black communities. And not just police shootings as some might claim. The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and despite being 13% of the American population, blacks make up 40% of the prison population, most of them imprisoned for non-violent offenses, and destined to become third class citizens even after they leave prison. The problem is so pervasive that 1/3 of all black men will spend some years in prison in their lifetime. Everyone in black communities across the country knows people who've been sent to jail. They have family and friends who've been there.
Question though... is Charlotte and it surrounding areas "set up" like the st. Louis townships?
I don't know how St. Louis is set up. Charlotte sits right in the middle of Mecklenburg County, and is a fairly neat ring there. Surrounding townships though mostly have their own police departments. The CMPD (Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department) has a few areas outside the city metro area they patrol, but they're not very populated. There's kind of a rural ring between Charlotte and the other townships around it.
CptJake wrote:Highlighted in orange is the problem with your whole post. BLM never really cared about the color of the cop, instead, they believe black people are treated poorly (and disproportionately shot) by cops. The color of the cop is not the issue. The perception cops treat black people poorly is.
This. The color of officers does matter in certain ways, but the more significant matter is that law enforcement is seen as "white" regardless of the color of any specific officer. The entire system is what stands accused for BLM and African American communities, which is why its so much easier to go from outrage over a specific incident to general rioting over the state of things.
It's almost like it's not about the protests at all, and more about a message people don't want to hear.
Don't be ridiculous.
But we run into that perception issue there. If one believes that the law is against them, or has shown little sympathy to what happens to them, why would it matter to a protestor?
It doesn't. Which is the whole point.
But personally I think we should all sit down, hold hands and sing together; "Oh rioting is wrooooooong"
I never claimed that anyone in this thread didn't know that rioting was criminal behavior and bad for society and deflecting to that straw man isn't helpful for civil discourse.
Being purposefully obtuse isn't helpful for civil discourse.
Throwing childish self destructive temper tantrums isn't the way to convince people to take you seriously or to enact governmental reforms.
The Arab Spring wasn't that long ago was it?
If you think the Civil Rights Act was some sort of Danegeld that was extorted from the federal government via violent urban rampages you're wrong.
Someone doesn't remember the Long Hot Summer of 1967, not that it gets much attention in history books.
Of course working to build a unified political movement,
Tried that. People treat it like a circus show. On this very board people treat it like a circus show.
It's only depressing if you buy into the inane concept that we should feel some sort of collective guilt over actions done by other people who are now long dead.
There you go being obtuse again, and oh look shoving words into peoples mouths too! Now all you have to do is call me a bleeding heart liberal and you win the trifecta!
So what exactly *do* these rioters want?
Change. What kind of change? They probably don't really know. These things happen because of a deeper sense of frustration, not because of a concise strategy. Charlotte isn't really a pinnacle of great police relations. Much like Ferguson, there's a lot of very heavy handed police tactics and a lot of discontent with the state of things in the black communities. The shooting is as an earlier poster tried to explain just a flash point.
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Maybe they shouldn't vote for the same politicians in the same party year after year and expect change?
...this right here.
One of the most useful things about a book I mentioned earlier (The New Jim Crow) is the way it pointedly criticizes Republican politicians for beginning the massive upswing in incarceration of young black men. It also points a very angry finger at groups like the National Black Caucus and the NAACP, for prioritizing social policies like Affirmative Action that help very few members of Black Communities, and becoming a watchdog for a sort of Black social elite within Black communities that doesn't do enough to help the communities at large.
Yes. The current political apparatus of the US isn't doing anything, but their options are pretty much vote for the groups that at least pay them lip service, or vote for the groups that demonize them and run on veiled racism. It's crappy choice but the choice they're going to make is rather obvious.
And also, advocate for the changes you want by engaging the process.
The process is part of the problem for them. Law enforcement disproportionately affects black communities. And not just police shootings as some might claim. The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and despite being 13% of the American population, blacks make up 40% of the prison population, most of them imprisoned for non-violent offenses, and destined to become third class citizens even after they leave prison. The problem is so pervasive that 1/3 of all black men will spend some years in prison in their lifetime. Everyone in black communities across the country knows people who've been sent to jail. They have family and friends who've been there.
Question though... is Charlotte and it surrounding areas "set up" like the st. Louis townships?
I don't know how St. Louis is set up. Charlotte sits right in the middle of Mecklenburg County, and is a fairly neat ring there. Surrounding townships though mostly have their own police departments. The CMPD (Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department) has a few areas outside the city metro area they patrol, but they're not very populated. There's kind of a rural ring between Charlotte and the other townships around it.
CptJake wrote:Highlighted in orange is the problem with your whole post. BLM never really cared about the color of the cop, instead, they believe black people are treated poorly (and disproportionately shot) by cops. The color of the cop is not the issue. The perception cops treat black people poorly is.
This. The color of officers does matter in certain ways, but the more significant matter is that law enforcement is seen as "white" regardless of the color of any specific officer. The entire system is what stands accused for BLM and African American communities, which is why its so much easier to go from outrage over a specific incident to general rioting over the state of things.
It's almost like it's not about the protests at all, and more about a message people don't want to hear.
Don't be ridiculous.
But we run into that perception issue there. If one believes that the law is against them, or has shown little sympathy to what happens to them, why would it matter to a protestor?
It doesn't. Which is the whole point.
But personally I think we should all sit down, hold hands and sing together; "Oh rioting is wroooong"
The Long Hot Summer of 1967 came 3 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed which is primarily why you don't find a lot of people claiming that it was instrumental in getting segregation abolished. The Arab Spring absolutely included organized and unified political parties/movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Has the political process really failed the protestors? In what recent election cycle or campaign has police brutality or police discrimination been brought up as an important issue? What legislative efforts in what governmental bodies have been vetoed or voted down that would have addressed these problems if passed? If such legislation hasn't been put forth why are riots more acceptable and effective than getting such legislation submitted? You can spin things however you want but the fact remains that committing violent crime isn't going to help sway public opinion or push politicians to advance real solutions to social problems because such actions give everyone free reign to rightly condemn such criminal behavior and set aside the core issues by focusing on the immediate problem of restoring order by jailing protestors and having the public applaud the action because it saved the city from burning down. Violence and intimidation won't beget a better more tolerate and equitable society, it will sow fear and result in police crackdowns and a message lost in the noise.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Long Hot Summer of 1967 came 3 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed which is primarily why you don't find a lot of people claiming that it was instrumental in getting segregation abolished.
Yes. 3 years after. Passing a piece of paper into law that says "everyone is equal to everyone and you have to treat them the same" isn't going to suddenly make everyone equal overnight. The question of civil rights did not end in 1964, otherwise we would still have national debates about it.
Has the political process really failed the protestors?
It's almost like we could have been talking about that instead of debating the rightness or wrongness of rioting. 5 pages and we've finally gotten back to what was being discussed within the first five posts of page 1!
In what recent election cycle or campaign has police brutality or police discrimination been brought up as an important issue?
I don't think it has been. Even in the current election, it's been rather peripheral. Hillary Clinton's website has a few sections of its Issues subheader that talk about it; This one for example talking about Racial Justice reforms but on the campaign trail she certainly hasn't said much about it, and well I don't think any of us take presidential nominees at their website when they say something is very important to them. A lot of her bullet points actually strike me as very unsubstantial honestly. It's easy to say "lets break the Achievement Gap," but how exactly are you going to do that? She has a rather extensive "Economic Revitalization Plan" but it too seems to treat race inequality as peripheral to me.
What legislative efforts in what governmental bodies have been vetoed or voted down that would have addressed these problems if passed?
Almost none.
If such legislation hasn't been put forth why are riots more acceptable and effective than getting such legislation submitted?
Why would we assume that if the past (almost) 60 years have see almost no meaningful reforms come out of government would engender any faith in the process? Especially when the reforms passed in that time have effected black communities have largely had negative repercussions and disproportionate effects?
I think this is the wrong question. It's plainly obvious why their faith in the power of submitted legislation is wanting.
You can spin things however you want but the fact remains that committing violent crime isn't going to help sway public opinion or push politicians to advance real solutions
Except that it does, because when people riot you either have to let them riot (which looks bad), or you have to put the riot down (which also looks bad). Rioting is one of the worst outcomes of continual social neglect precisely because once things have gotten to the point of rioting you're in a catch-22. Rioting is obviously bad, but dealing with the rioting without dealing with its underlying causes almost universally plays out negatively. Especially when the riot is about race issues. That's why response to the Ferguson riots was so soft. There's more than enough reason to sympathize with angry black Americans, and violently shutting them down opens a huge can of worms that no politician seems to want to deal with.
Violence and intimidation won't beget a better more tolerate and equitable society,
No but obviously it begets rioting, which is why responding to rioting with more violence and intimidation one might expect there to be even more rioting.
Rioting isn't fun. Rioting is angry. Very angry. We've arguably ignored and band aid patched that anger since Reconstruction failed to fully resolve the end of Slavery, fooling ourselves into thinking "it's fixed now" because we manage to create a false sense of optimism about the prospects of the future with each band aid. But the band aid dries up and falls off eventually, and when that happens people start looking around and see that things haven't changed as much as they thought it had. We're in that moment right now. The band aid of the Civil Rights era is falling off, and black communities are realizing they're still widely subjected to injustice and social rot (assuming they ever really forgot). That's nearly 160 years of anger. That's not going to go away by taking a community that already feels subject to violence and intimidation, and subjecting it to an even heavier hand?
The process is part of the problem for them. Law enforcement disproportionately affects black communities. And not just police shootings as some might claim. The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and despite being 13% of the American population, blacks make up 40% of the prison population, most of them imprisoned for non-violent offenses, and destined to become third class citizens even after they leave prison. The problem is so pervasive that 1/3 of all black men will spend some years in prison in their lifetime. Everyone in black communities across the country knows people who've been sent to jail. They have family and friends who've been there.
You left out that those black disproportionately commits the crime as well.
Having said that, I've long argued that we need massive Justice & Incarceration reforms.
There are obvious bias against blacks when they're sentanced.
Mandatory sentencing need to "not be mandatory". (I realize that this may not be popular as some scum may skate lightly).
The state-provided defense attorney system is a joke.
For-profit incarceration really needs to be declared illegal (ping me if you're interested why I think it's illegal).
And furthermore, jail should only be used for dangerous & violent criminals. (expand the ankle monitoring system for non-violent offenders).
So, yes, I believe it *is* acknowledged that there are problems with these institutions.
But rioting and violence will NOT garner any sympathy.
The BLM and like movements are fething up big time.
Question though... is Charlotte and it surrounding areas "set up" like the st. Louis townships?
I don't know how St. Louis is set up. Charlotte sits right in the middle of Mecklenburg County, and is a fairly neat ring there. Surrounding townships though mostly have their own police departments. The CMPD (Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department) has a few areas outside the city metro area they patrol, but they're not very populated. There's kind of a rural ring between Charlotte and the other townships around it.
Interesting.
Here's where I'm coming from... look at this map of St. Louis:
Spoiler:
See all the podunk townships all over the place?
Look for Ferguson and it's surrounding towns.
EACH one of those township has it's own municipal government / courts / police departments.
There's a high concentration of blacks living in those towns.
If these municipal government's budget relies on ticket infractions and such... guess who's the target?
To me, in Ferguson and surrounding areas, THAT's the major culprit of the tensions between residence and their local government.
FYI: here's the "judgemental non-PC" view of the map:
Spoiler:
But personally I think we should all sit down, hold hands and sing together; "Oh rioting is wrooooooong"
But Lordy... that doesn't solve anything!?!
Unless it's over pork steaks & beer... can solve the world's problems with those.
TULSA, Okla. (AP) — Prosecutors in Tulsa, Oklahoma, have filed first-degree manslaughter charges against the white police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black man on a city street.
District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler filed the charges Thursday against officer Betty Shelby, who shot and killed 40-year-old Terence Crutcher on Sept. 16. Dashcam and aerial footage of the shooting and its aftermath showed Crutcher walking away from Shelby with his arms in the air.
The footage does not offer a clear view of when Shelby fired the single shot that killed Crutcher. Her attorney has said Crutcher was not following police commands and that Shelby opened fire when the man began to reach into his SUV window.
Tulsa police say Crutcher did not have a gun on him or in his vehicle.
I'm surprised that they're pressing charges, considering how these things usually go down. Convicting her is another story though.
Manslaughter though? I thought it was generally understood by everyone who's not an American cop that if you shoot somebody with a gun you're probably trying to kill them. So killing them would be murder. Maybe a manslaughter charge will be easy to stick?
Im assuming that after the high profile murder charges on officers in similiar situations going nowhere, manslaughter seems like an easier charge.
Judging by the article the investigation yielded enough information for them to go through with a charge.
The Tulsa shooting is a bit different than the Charlotte one though at least in the facts that are known. The PD admitted the guy had no guy on him or in his car, and the video is fairly clear that he had his hands raised almost the entire time
You left out that those black disproportionately commits the crime as well.
Except they don't. Numerous studies have found that Blacks do not commit a disproportionate amount of crime.* They are however disproportionately arrested and punished. In fact some studies suggest that the rate of crime is much higher among well off whites than it is among poor blacks. We just happily give a white kid from the suburbs benefit of the doubt, or the "he's young and foolish excuse", while a black kid from the ghetto gets people talking about how black criminal youths are a problem that is out of control.
Spoiler:
Ha!
The Female officer who shot the gentleman with his arms raised is being charged with manslaughter
While yet another example of why people might be inclined to riot, I'm not sure a shooting that occurred last week in Tusla Oklahoma is directly related to a riot sparked by a shooting in Charlotte North Carolina.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm surprised that they're pressing charges, considering how these things usually go down. Convicting her is another story though.
Manslaughter though? I thought it was generally understood by everyone who's not an American cop that if you shoot somebody with a gun you're probably trying to kill them. So killing them would be murder. Maybe a manslaughter charge will be easy to stick?
Manslaughter is applied via exigent circumstances. That the victim was reaching into his car and not following police orders (assuming these things are true of course), easily qualifies as having influenced the officer's decision to fire, and brings the appropriate charge down from full murder. Manslaughter however is still a serious crime. If convicted her career would be over, she'd probably lose her pension, and she'd spend upwards of more than a decade in prison (don't know what Oklahoma's manslaughter charges entail for punishment).
But it is interesting to see how the cities reacted to a smiliar situation, one city rioting, one remaining fairly peaceful.
Though looking at both stories and the facts that are known, I'm still surprised the Tulsa one isnt the one blowing up, it seems more in the favor of the shootee rather than the shooter of the Charlotte situation
WrentheFaceless wrote: Though looking at both stories and the facts that are known, I'm still surprised the Tulsa one isnt the one blowing up, it seems more in the favor of the shootee rather than the shooter of the Charlotte situation
You left out that those black disproportionately commits the crime as well.
Except they don't. Numerous studies have found that Blacks do not commit a disproportionate amount of crime.* They are however disproportionately arrested and punished. In fact some studies suggest that the rate of crime is much higher among well off whites than it is among poor blacks. We just happily give a white kid from the suburbs benefit of the doubt, or the "he's young and foolish excuse", while a black kid from the ghetto gets people talking about how black criminal youths are a problem that is out of control.
I think I'm having a hard time articulating the point I'm trying to drive across...
I'm not arguing that, in a vacuum, blacks are predisposed to commiting... which is absurd.
I believe it's more to do with where they live, education, poverty, gangs, nuclear family, and other factors... rather than overt/subversive racism. (*please note, I'm not saying racism doesn't happen, only that it's not the *root cause* )
ANd in Ferguson's case, the acrimony between the public in police/municipal really starts with using their citizens as a revenue stream in leu of ticket violations.
IN the end, I do agree that we need Justice Reforms in a real bad way...
You left out that those black disproportionately commits the crime as well.
Except they don't. Numerous studies have found that Blacks do not commit a disproportionate amount of crime.* They are however disproportionately arrested and punished. In fact some studies suggest that the rate of crime is much higher among well off whites than it is among poor blacks. We just happily give a white kid from the suburbs benefit of the doubt, or the "he's young and foolish excuse", while a black kid from the ghetto gets people talking about how black criminal youths are a problem that is out of control.
I just go off the homicide numbers that the FBI put out...
I'd figure homicide stats are probably more reliable than other crime stats because you're less likely to have a murder that goes unreported and uninvestigated.
You left out that those black disproportionately commits the crime as well.
Except they don't. Numerous studies have found that Blacks do not commit a disproportionate amount of crime.* They are however disproportionately arrested and punished. In fact some studies suggest that the rate of crime is much higher among well off whites than it is among poor blacks. We just happily give a white kid from the suburbs benefit of the doubt, or the "he's young and foolish excuse", while a black kid from the ghetto gets people talking about how black criminal youths are a problem that is out of control.
I just go off the homicide numbers that the FBI put out...
I'd figure homicide stats are probably more reliable than other crime stats because you're less likely to have a murder that goes unreported and uninvestigated.
Of all the African-Americans stopped by the police, how many of them were stopped as part of a homicide investigation?
d-usa wrote: Of all the African-Americans stopped by the police, how many of them were stopped as part of a homicide investigation?
I don't think I ever suggested that was the case?
But unless you believe blacks have a higher propensity for murder (I don't) then a higher murder rate would imply there's likely a higher overall violent crime rate. If there's an overall higher violent crime rate, cops are in turn more likely to respond with violence and shootings, either intentional or by accident, are more likely to occur.
Murderers represent a very small percentage of all incarcerated persons, and a small percentage of incarcerated blacks (that murder rates are much higher among blacks than whites is otherwise highly recognized, but it's root cause simply goes back to all these other problems). Most people in US prisons are there for non-violent drug charges, and that's why most incarcerated blacks are in prison. Yet whites use drugs at a much higher rate than blacks;
There are of course a lot of whites in prison for drug offenses as well, but given that white use drugs more than any other race, the number should be statistically higher than it actually is.
And even in non drug related offenses, arrest rates for blacks across the board are astronomically higher. Black neighborhoods are far more heavily patrolled than non-black neighborhoods, so it is only nature that arrest rates are higher, but it's really hard to ignore the massive disparities as being horribly biased unless we honestly believe 4% of Dearborn's population is responsible for 50% of its crime to the extent that the police arrested 500 more blacks than even lived in the city.
Blacks are more likely than others to be arrested in almost every city for almost every type of crime. Nationwide, black people are arrested at higher rates for crimes as serious as murder and assault, and as minor as loitering and marijuana possession.
• Arrest rates are lopsided almost everywhere. Only 173 of the 3,538 police departments USA TODAY examined arrested black people at a rate equal to or lower than other racial groups.
Either 13-20% of America's population is responsible for more than half of this country's crime statistics, or there is a bias in play. Ignoring this problem is why we saw riots in Ferguson (which was easily one of the worst offending townships in the entire country), and I won't be shocked if it later comes out that it's much the same in Charlotte. Things were not well there ten years ago when I lived in the area, and I don't think they've gotten any better.
But it is interesting to see how the cities reacted to a smiliar situation, one city rioting, one remaining fairly peaceful.
While I doubt it has much to do with it, Tulsa was the site of one of the worst episodes of racial violence in the US in the 20th Century... If you're interested, just look up the Tulsa Riots. Obviously, I don't think there's many (if any) people who were alive for that event that are alive today, but I do believe in a cultural "memory," which could very easily have been passed on through the years. And that could play some part in why we're not seeing much out of Tulsa.
But it is interesting to see how the cities reacted to a smiliar situation, one city rioting, one remaining fairly peaceful.
While I doubt it has much to do with it, Tulsa was the site of one of the worst episodes of racial violence in the US in the 20th Century... If you're interested, just look up the Tulsa Riots. Obviously, I don't think there's many (if any) people who were alive for that event that are alive today, but I do believe in a cultural "memory," which could very easily have been passed on through the years. And that could play some part in why we're not seeing much out of Tulsa.
Some other factors that may also have contributed are the difference in percentage of the population in the two cities, and more importantly IMO the recent history of shooting and trials in the two cities.
Charlotte just had a trial of a police officer end with a hung jury, and Tulsa just had a trial where a sheriff deputy was found guilty of shooting an unarmed black man and was send to jail.
The Race Riots were not covered at all during my Oklahoma History class in high school, and of the people who have heard of it here in Oklahoma many have the colors of the parties involved backwards.
I don't think its whether blacks have a higher propensity to do crime so much, rather the cultural values promoted in certain inner cities that promote crime. In general though, bigger cities will always have this sorta sub gang culture, it's just that some possibly foster it more than others.
Furthermore, there is the compounding nature of racial identity within cities, and the pack mentality it can create. That is to be expected.
The solution for this isn't more progressive government. It's a thing that must be tackled from a voluntary ideological approach (once called ministry).
Can't fix corrupt morals in a society with more government; where the elected is from a society that advocate corrupt morals.
But it is interesting to see how the cities reacted to a smiliar situation, one city rioting, one remaining fairly peaceful.
While I doubt it has much to do with it, Tulsa was the site of one of the worst episodes of racial violence in the US in the 20th Century... If you're interested, just look up the Tulsa Riots. Obviously, I don't think there's many (if any) people who were alive for that event that are alive today, but I do believe in a cultural "memory," which could very easily have been passed on through the years. And that could play some part in why we're not seeing much out of Tulsa.
For some info;
The Tulsa Riot in 1921 was one of the contributing events to the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan. It occurred in what was one of the wealthiest and most stable black communities in the US at the time and was a national shock.
The incident occured accused when a young black man was accused of raping a white girl. Many in the black community feared he'd be lynched. This fear was driven by the lynching of a white man named Roy Belton who shot a white taxi driver the previous year (whites did occasionally lynch other whites back then). Fearing that if a white man could be lynched, then so could a black man the local community (called Greenwood) drove itself to take proactive action. Following a newspaper report calling for the young man to be hanged, rumors rapid surged through the local black community that there was a lynch mob forming to do just that.
Around roughly the same time two mobs (one white and one black) began to converge on the court house. Initially the white mob was much larger, and was mobilizing to lynch the accused rapist Dick Rowland. Both mobs however were armed with rifles and shot guns. Tensions grew between the two mobs, one fearing a lynching of a young black man, and the other fearing a black uprising in the city,. 1000 whites took up arms from a local National Guard armory, while many blacks actually drove in from outside the city to support the local black community. Several times white men attempted to threaten the local sheriff (the same one who handed Roy Bolton over to a mob), but the sheriff refused them each time. Violence broke out when a white man walked up to a black man and ordered him to surrender a pistol he was carrying (according to a witness and to my knowledge there is no other statement over how it started). No one knows exactly what happened after that, but a shot was fired.
The first shot triggered volleys of fire from the two mobs into one another for just a few seconds before the mobs began to disperse. Ten whites and two blacks were killed. The black mob began to retreat back to Greenwood and was pursued by the white mob, who accidentally killed a white man as he was exiting a movie theater. The National Guard organized, and members of the American Legion volunteered to restore order, but they focused only on white neighborhoods, forcibly detaining any black they found and sending them to a local community center in a white neighborhood. Another lynch mob meanwhile formed to lynch Dick Rowland, but the sheriff (he seems to have honestly regretted turning over Roy Bolton) refused them again. Dick Rowland was not killed during the riots.
By midnight firefights were breaking out between whites and blacks. Predominatly along a railroad track that divided the white and black communities there was widespread looting of stores. A white mob started setting fires at 1 AM. A train arriving early in the morning was interpreted by blacks as a new white mob coming to attack them, and by whites as a new black mob coming to attack them. A white man stepping off the simple freight train was shot and killed by a sniper in Greenwood. This prompted an all out assault on Greenwood by white mobs on foot and in cars. It even included biplanes that dropped fire bombs into the neighborhood.
Outside Greenwood there were other mobs storming white houses and demanding the detention of black employees. Most white families agreed, but some refused and their homes were vandalized. By 9 am the riot was over and the National Guard forcibly restored order. Most blacks in the city had fled or were already being detained by white mobs. The actual number of dead has never been very clear. Numerous numbers were reported at the time between 10 and 300. Nearly 2 million dollars in property were destroyed. officially there are recorded only 39 deaths, 19 white men and 20 blacks however this number is almost certainly wrong. How wrong is a toss up. Greenwood was a ruin following the events, and was not fully rebuilt until the 1940s.
The violence of the Tusla riots were a national shock as many Americans perceived race relations as improve at the time. Along with the Atlanta riots in 1906, and several race riots following the return of black WWI veterans to their home towns, these circumstances laid the seeds for what would become the Civil Rights movement in the 50s.
LordofHats wrote: Murderers represent a very small percentage of all incarcerated persons, and a small percentage of incarcerated blacks
Of course, you 'muricans love putting people away for menial drug charges, it's probably why you have a higher incarceration rate than any other country (not having looked at the numbers, it's just a guess).
But I didn't talk about incarceration rate, I talked about violent crime rate. Police aren't going to be more likely to shoot blacks because there's more blacks in prison, they're going to shoot them because they're more afraid blacks are involved in violent crime.
Too many pages past since my last post, but I'll say what I said back then, I believe it's a socio-economic problem due to more blacks being in poor socio-economic circumstances. As long as more blacks come from poor homes and single parent families and drug abusing families, it's going to be a problem.
LordofHats wrote: Murderers represent a very small percentage of all incarcerated persons, and a small percentage of incarcerated blacks
Of course, you 'muricans love putting people away for menial drug charges, it's probably why you have a higher incarceration rate than any other country (not having looked at the numbers, it's just a guess).
But I didn't talk about incarceration rate, I talked about violent crime rate. Police aren't going to be more likely to shoot blacks because there's more blacks in prison, they're going to shoot them because they're more afraid blacks are involved in violent crime.
Too many pages past since my last post, but I'll say what I said back then, I believe it's a socio-economic problem due to more blacks being in poor socio-economic circumstances. As long as more blacks come from poor homes and single parent families and drug abusing families, it's going to be a problem.
I agree. However, our current solution to get them out of poverty is social welfare, which is just perpetuating the problem further. Hopefully I don't sound too harsh, but the cruelty of ones own choices should be suffered by less people not more. If people don't change the values causing them such strife, then what good is it to keep throwing money at them?
From my understanding, churches use to be more involved with this sorta thing in the early 20th century, then they progressively handed it off to big momma government. At least with the church model, they could evaluate someones morals and give conditions to them - in order for them to be helped by the congregation.
Not every poor person should be helped. /shrug. Its really tragic when there are kids involved. BUT, even still, if you especially don't like seeing starving kids, then the INDIVIDUAL should do something about it, and risk their own investment. If people can't bother themselves to minister (or support a ministry) to the depravity in their own society, then what on good earth makes anyone think government will do any better?
Not sure why the Police won't release it to the public though.
Police chief said they won't do so during the ongoing investigation.
Which is why body cams aren't really the panacea that I think was once believed. If it was a righteous shoot, they release the video immediately, and if it isn't, they hide the video as long as they can.
Which you think she would have noticed, considering:
The affidavit filed Thursday also indicates that Shelby "cleared the driver's side front" of Crutcher's vehicle before she began interacting with Crutcher, suggesting she may have known there was no gun on the driver's side of the vehicle.
Of course she was also fearing for her life as he was walking away from her with his hands up...
Not sure why the Police won't release it to the public though.
Police chief said they won't do so during the ongoing investigation.
Which is why body cams aren't really the panacea that I think was once believed. If it was a righteous shoot, they release the video immediately, and if it isn't, they hide the video as long as they can.
Just because video footage doesn't get immediately released to the slavering masses doesn't mean it isn't helping. It is an awkward position authorities find themselves in. Firstly, there is a due process, and keeping evidence confidential until after the verdict to avoid trial by media is the logical and correct way of doing things IMO, though now we not only have trial by media but trial by social media, where any fetching imbecile can make a meme and post it on social media and influence the populace that aren't capable of critical thought. Secondly, authorities are always going to be hesitant releasing graphic video. If someone got shot and killed in a video, it's not something that is usually going to get released unless the police think its going to help the investigation.
It would be nice if...
1. There was transparency on the process. (and I will be honest I have no idea how transparent it is given I have never tried to access case data).
2. The general population realized due process takes time and were patient instead of wanting instant satisfaction.
3. The media attempted to report facts objectively instead of incitefully.
I just watched the Terrence Crutcher video. Ummm... I guess I don't understand how many don't see the alarming behavior... of walking away from the police officer (regardless of hands up), then multiple officers appearing, bearing down... and still, HE is bent on getting back into his car. I mean, what do you think is gonna happen?
There's a reason why you listen to lawful orders. If a cop were to tell you to step away from the car, you do it, especially if his gun is aimed at you. Most sane people cower at this.
IT is suspicious when you don't cower, obey or relent.
IT is suspicious when you don't cower, obey or relent.
Unless of course, you're a "sovereign citizen"
Sovereignty means nothing without an authority to legitimize its claim. If from a Christian perspective, there's a balance between knowing when to disobey and when to comply. It took the founders of the US to accrue a laundry list before finally standing on their claim.
I don't think sovereign citizen claims can be so absolute and it remain reasonable - in a free society.
However, I do think that police officers do not have a legitimate right to do whatever, regardless of the legislature. That there are some fundamental things that police cannot do out of sequence and it remain legit. You can disobey in such situations, but be prepared to make a stand... and possibly lose your life or take a life.
Not sure why the Police won't release it to the public though.
Police chief said they won't do so during the ongoing investigation.
Which is why body cams aren't really the panacea that I think was once believed. If it was a righteous shoot, they release the video immediately, and if it isn't, they hide the video as long as they can.
Just because video footage doesn't get immediately released to the slavering masses doesn't mean it isn't helping. It is an awkward position authorities find themselves in. Firstly, there is a due process, and keeping evidence confidential until after the verdict to avoid trial by media is the logical and correct way of doing things IMO, though now we not only have trial by media but trial by social media, where any fetching imbecile can make a meme and post it on social media and influence the populace that aren't capable of critical thought. Secondly, authorities are always going to be hesitant releasing graphic video. If someone got shot and killed in a video, it's not something that is usually going to get released unless the police think its going to help the investigation.
It would be nice if...
1. There was transparency on the process. (and I will be honest I have no idea how transparent it is given I have never tried to access case data).
2. The general population realized due process takes time and were patient instead of wanting instant satisfaction.
3. The media attempted to report facts objectively instead of incitefully.
Good post. And one that is an informed one. When I was a cop, that was the SOP after a police related shooting. The same when I went into corrections after leaving police work. You hold off releasing details until you complete a through investigation, and can paint an accurate picture of what happened. A fact lost on many nowadays, including some in this very thread.
As for as transparency goes, I can tell you that it won't solve anything. First off, it's a boring and, possibly, drawn out process. And it seems that people in the United States nowadays have the attention spans of five year olds. Second, the agency (or agencies) investigating will still be called liars by the rabble-rousers and grievance industry hucksters, accused of covering up for "one of their own". And third, the media hacks and politicos will always find a way to exploit it to their benefit. Some of this was explained in a couple of vids I posted, but a Mod pulled them and deleted the post for whatever reason (but it's no skin off my back. I couldn't care less).
In this age of instant gratification, people have no patience, even with something so critical as this. And the media, politicians, and grievance industry will always find a way to stir up and profit from it in some way.
But the system does work, as Betty Shelby found out in Tulsa. It just doesn't work fast enough, or to the satisfaction, of some people.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But I didn't talk about incarceration rate, I talked about violent crime rate. Police aren't going to be more likely to shoot blacks because there's more blacks in prison, they're going to shoot them because they're more afraid blacks are involved in violent crime.
Yes but that doesn't really get to anything that I was talking about, hence an attempt to tail back. Violent crime has been on the down swing in the US for many years. General crime rates have been going down period. but our incarceration rates kept rising until recently and are still high above violent crime rates;
Spoiler:
Yet, even though crime rates hit lows in the 90s, the incarceration rates of black men continued to sky rocket;
Spoiler:
Now look at this graph;
Spoiler:
Only the incarceration rates of black males mirror those of the US incarceration rates as a whole. Hispanics were effected less, and whites were proportionally almost completely unaffected by the spike that began in the 80s. This is in part because government policy on the Drug War since 1980 arguably specifically target black communities, in spite of blacks having a massively lower rate of committing drug offenses.
I believe it's a socio-economic problem due to more blacks being in poor socio-economic circumstances. As long as more blacks come from poor homes and single parent families and drug abusing families, it's going to be a problem.
There's no real difference between the two. Many blacks live in single parent families because so many black men end up in prison for very long periods of time. They're poor because it's really hard to build up your socio-economic gains when families can't effectively organize for their own benefit, and decades of past events are stacked against you.
OK, now I am no genius. But is there not a correlation between high incarceration rates leading to the decline of crime rates? If you suddenly stopped incarcerating people, do you think crime rates would continue to be on the decline. It seems like you are tryign to say we incarcerate too many people, while in a parallel crime is going down, but incarceration is bad, crime rate decline is good, and they are not related. Seems like more criminals in jail would lead to a lower crime rate, sincey they are now in jail, doing less crime? I mean sometime if it looks like an apple, it really is just an apple.
-Family saw the video, had no further comment after seeing it. Witnesses on scene said they saw a gun as well.
-many of the arrests made of rioters and looters so far are out of state IDs.
Tulsa-
-She apparently meant to fire her tazer, not her gun. I have seen these "gunslinger" setups cops wear, I have often wondered how many times they draw the wrong one. Most of the tazers I have seen look and draw very similarly to guns. This is probably why they got her on manslaughter charges.
-Further, not saying its right, but the man was refusing orders, put his hand to his waist like he was drawing a gun and I have seen split second draws by bad guys and them getting shots off even on prepared cops. Siucide by cop. This guy knew he was going to jail regardless, maybe after 9 years already served he had enough.
Col. Dash wrote: -She apparently meant to fire her tazer, not her gun. I have seen these "gunslinger" setups cops wear, I have often wondered how many times they draw the wrong one. Most of the tazers I have seen look and draw very similarly to guns. This is probably why they got her on manslaughter charges.
I'm not overly familiar with the law there, but I think manslaughter is the correct charge for negligence or incompetence in one's job leading to someone's death.
Murder would be if you could prove she did it with malice and/or premeditated intent.
1st degree manslaughter is still a pretty serious charge and carries several years minimum sentence in several (most?) states.
LordofHats wrote: Yes but that doesn't really get to anything that I was talking about, hence an attempt to tail back. Violent crime has been on the down swing in the US for many years. General crime rates have been going down period. but our incarceration rates kept rising until recently and are still high above violent crime rates;
Yeah but I don't really see what that has to do with the topic at hand.
Incarceration rates are related to what you put people in jail for which isn't necessarily linked to police violence against a particular people group.
Unless you're trying to make the argument that blacks are specifically targeted for incarceration more than whites, in which case I'd have to ask whether the drug offences in predominantly black communities result in more community related problems and thus are policed more (eg, drug related violence, drug related theft, etc).
For example, is a middle class person who might occasionally do drugs, but still manage to get through college and get a decent job as much of a problem as a poor person who occasionally takes drugs, mugs some people to get money to pay for the drugs and then stabs their dealer when a deal goes awry?
Like, here in Australia you sometimes see police targeting specific areas of a city, it's usually the poor run down areas they target where there's more gang violence. In the past I've seen cops targeting railway stations and it's not the ones in nice areas they target, it's the ones in the bad parts of town. Now if those communities happen to be predominantly black, does it suddenly make it racism to target those communities, or is it simply smart policing?
It does seem to me that the war on drugs in the US is over the top to the point it does more harm than good, but can you prove it's racist policing and not just policing the most troubled communities... which also happen to be predominantly black?
I believe it's a socio-economic problem due to more blacks being in poor socio-economic circumstances. As long as more blacks come from poor homes and single parent families and drug abusing families, it's going to be a problem.
There's no real difference between the two.
Between the two whats? I didn't give 2 options there.
Many blacks live in single parent families because so many black men end up in prison for very long periods of time. They're poor because it's really hard to build up your socio-economic gains when families can't effectively organize for their own benefit, and decades of past events are stacked against you.
Yeah, so what do we do about it? Blame police and cry about events of decades past? That seems somewhat counter productive if your goal is to encourage people that they can get out of their circumstances.
I guess it's easier to apply blame externally than it is to fix the internal problems in a community. Though I don't know what the former achieves, recognition that you're in a crap situation because of things done in generations past? Ok, but I don't see how that helps anyone now.
You know, incarceration rates are unbalanced, ok, maybe.
Should we start getting harder on prosecution of whites, thereby making our rates climb even higher? Or should we just stop prosecuting blacks, because it's not "fair".
The argument is made that the socioeconomic status sucks, because to many are in jail. Well, maybe they shouldn't have broken the law then?
In terms of the fairness, a broken law is a broken law. If there are more whites committing crimes, and not getting prosecuted/jailed for it, then the system is at fault there. The second you start saying it's not their fault, because they're in jail... well you're wrong. They made the choices that landed them there.
djones520 wrote: You know, incarceration rates are unbalanced, ok, maybe.
Should we start getting harder on prosecution of whites, thereby making our rates climb even higher? Or should we just stop prosecuting blacks, because it's not "fair".
The argument is made that the socioeconomic status sucks, because to many are in jail. Well, maybe they shouldn't have broken the law then?
In terms of the fairness, a broken law is a broken law. If there are more whites committing crimes, and not getting prosecuted/jailed for it, then the system is at fault there. The second you start saying it's not their fault, because they're in jail... well you're wrong. They made the choices that landed them there.
I both agree and disagree. It might be their own fault that they're in jail, but the best community response to a minor drug charge isn't to put people in jail in the first place, it only hurts the community more.
But that said, I think it's all tangential issues rather than core issues, the core issues being an attitude of victimhood, poor education, young/poor single mothers and other similar issues. I think I read somewhere that around 80% of black kids are born to single mothers? That's not really a stat you can blame on incarceration rates or police shooting the odd person but it's definitely going to lead to deep seeded socio-economic issues.
I would hazard a guess that a good portion of the people in jail didn't actually commit a crime. They are just bullied into accepting a plea deal.
Plus, a black male is more likely than a white male to be convicted by a jury and will on average receive a higher sentence.
Add in that blacks have a harder time getting hired. There have been numerous studies that if the name sounds black, the resume will get fewer responses.
The argument is made that the socioeconomic status sucks, because to many are in jail. Well, maybe they shouldn't have broken the law then?
I would argue that a criminal record should not be an immediate disqualification for certain forms of employment, and that certain not-white people are often seen as equivalent to having a criminal record even if one does not exist. Often the thought is "They didn't get caught."
I have seen both these things happen in every job where I've had the responsibility to hire people, and it was almost always CYA nonsense, and it generally led to hiring a less competent person.
Col. Dash wrote: Tulsa-
-She apparently meant to fire her tazer, not her gun. I have seen these "gunslinger" setups cops wear, I have often wondered how many times they draw the wrong one. Most of the tazers I have seen look and draw very similarly to guns. This is probably why they got her on manslaughter charges.
"Apparently" according to... who? Are you sure you're not just pulling this out of your ass? I've read absolutely no story whatsoever that indicates that she confused her (approximately 40 ounce) firearm for her (7 ounce) taser.
Her own lawyer isn't even floating this crazy bs, so why are you?
"She was yelling at him to stop, for probably at least 10 to 15 seconds. He gets to the window of the SUV, and has his hands in the air, looks at them ... and his left hand goes into the window," at which point one officer deployed his Taser and Shelby fired her service weapon. Shelby had a Taser but did not take it out, the attorney said.
Wood told CNN in a follow-up interview that his client had her gun out because she was the only officer there for a few minutes and she thought Crutcher was armed. The second officer had a Taser because the "proper tactic ... in that scenario is for second person ... to have less lethal (weapon)," said Wood, a former police officer.
redleger wrote: OK, now I am no genius. But is there not a correlation between high incarceration rates leading to the decline of crime rates?
If it were a 1 to 1 relationship, we should have seen incarceration rates even out and begin a decline at some point earlier than 2011ish. Obviously crimes take time to investigate and prosecute, but over 10 years after the decline began is just too long. Crime started dropping steadily in the mid 90s, but incarcerations continued to rapidly rise from the rest of the 90s and on into the 00s. An obvious answer is that convictions proportional to to arrests increased. Even though there were/are fewer crimes and thus there were/are fewer arrests, the punishments are harsher and the likely hood of conviction much higher. A more accurate answer is that over all crime has dropped, but that the invention of a whole new list of drug laws has lead to a much higher rate of conviction for specific charges (drug charges);
Drug arrests rose in relative proportion to our incarceration rate, which isn't surprising given that most of the people we now incarcerate are incarcerated for drug crimes. Mandatory sentencing almost certainly played a role in this, but much heavier police presence and action against drug specific offenses is also in play. The Drug War wasn't much of a war before the late 70s.
If you suddenly stopped incarcerating people, do you think crime rates would continue to be on the decline.
Honestly this is probably impossible to know right now. Historians, Sociologists, and Political Scientists are still largely clueless why Crime Rates in the US spiked in the 60s, and suddenly sharply declined starting in the 90s. The drop and rise are poorly defined, and poorly understood in the grand scheme.
It seems like you are tryign to say we incarcerate too many people, while in a parallel crime is going down, but incarceration is bad, crime rate decline is good, and they are not related.
Having incarceration rate is of course a bad thing depending on how you look at it. On the one hand, it does mean people are being punished for crimes. It means your throwing a whole ton of people into prison, and one has to wonder if its really worthwhile to criminalize some behaviors. A crime rate decline is of course good, but their relation cannot be assumed to be zero sum. It is a common mistake that pervades how Americans look at criminal justice and law enforcement. The reality is that punishment and crime are related factors but they do not necessarily share a causal relationship such that change in one directly reflects change in the other. Despite the invention of a whole new list of crimes, and a lot of arrest for them, in the 80s, our crime rate still started dropping in the 90s even as drug related arrests and convictions continued to rise.
djones520 wrote: Should we start getting harder on prosecution of whites, thereby making our rates climb even higher? Or should we just stop prosecuting blacks, because it's not "fair".
There's that obtuseness.
It's not about fair. It's about how stupid this all is. Curiously, the incarceration rate began to drop in 2011. Guess what happened in 2010? The end of Federal mandatory sentencing for Crack Cocaine possession alongside retroactive sentencing reductions. It's curious that even though crack cocaine * makes up a very small portion of total US drug use, it carried widely disproportionate penalties. There are people in prison for 20 years for having a very small amount of stuff (even longer if charged with "intent to distribute"). We send people to prison on shorter terms for manslaughter. The police officer in Tulsa if convicted will spend less time in jail for killing a man than someone found with a baggie of crack in their pocket (well... you know before we through out that mandatory sentence for simple possession which is no longer in play at the Federal level).
*I couldn't manage to find an infographic of total drug use for the US, so I'm simply linking this giant list of charts. Curious stat; Illicit lifetime drug use among blacks is (thousands) 15,079. Among whites its (thousands) 91,533. But yes. Lets pretend that the rampantly wild disproportion at which blacks are convicted of drug charges is just "they shouldn't commit crimes" and that there is zero racism at all in any of this.
The argument is made that the socioeconomic status sucks, because to many are in jail. Well, maybe they shouldn't have broken the law then?
I would argue that a criminal record should not be an immediate disqualification for certain forms of employment, and that certain not-white people are often seen as equivalent to having a criminal record even if one does not exist. Often the thought is "They didn't get caught."
I have seen both these things happen in every job where I've had the responsibility to hire people, and it was almost always CYA nonsense, and it generally led to hiring a less competent person.
Is it racism or economics? Put another way, are poor whites getting any advantage over poor blacks? Not really. It's just that minority groups have disproportionately high rates of poverty and if you are poor, things get bad. While race and economics are tied, I think trying to address it as purely race misses the bigger problem. Wealthier minorities, for example, don't suffer the same issues.
Inequality is not a 1 dimensional beast, but the largest axis is wealth.
Col. Dash wrote: Tulsa-
-She apparently meant to fire her tazer, not her gun. I have seen these "gunslinger" setups cops wear, I have often wondered how many times they draw the wrong one. Most of the tazers I have seen look and draw very similarly to guns. This is probably why they got her on manslaughter charges.
"Apparently" according to... who? Are you sure you're not just pulling this out of your ass? I've read absolutely no story whatsoever that indicates that she confused her (approximately 40 ounce) firearm for her (7 ounce) taser.
Her own lawyer isn't even floating this crazy bs, so why are you?
I almost wonder if he is thinking about the old guy from a few years ago, which also happened in Tulsa.
Col. Dash wrote: Tulsa-
-She apparently meant to fire her tazer, not her gun. I have seen these "gunslinger" setups cops wear, I have often wondered how many times they draw the wrong one. Most of the tazers I have seen look and draw very similarly to guns. This is probably why they got her on manslaughter charges.
"Apparently" according to... who? Are you sure you're not just pulling this out of your ass? I've read absolutely no story whatsoever that indicates that she confused her (approximately 40 ounce) firearm for her (7 ounce) taser.
Her own lawyer isn't even floating this crazy bs, so why are you?
I've heard that vein floating around as well, not sure if it's legit or not.
At any rate, a co-worker of mine was military police, before he switched to weather. We talked about that, and he says it happens quite often, that an officer will reach for his taser, and grab his pistol. It's a result of bad training.
From what I read of the officers statement though, she didn't try the taser defense. Sounded like she panicked, and made a bad shoot. Charges are definitely seeming warranted.
jmurph wrote: Is it racism or economics? Put another way, are poor whites getting any advantage over poor blacks? Not really. It's just that minority groups have disproportionately high rates of poverty and if you are poor, things get bad. While race and economics are tied, I think trying to address it as purely race misses the bigger problem. Wealthier minorities, for example, don't suffer the same issues.
Inequality is not a 1 dimensional beast, but the largest axis is wealth.
It's a combination of both. Being black means a less chance of being hired to begin with so less chance of bringing yourself out of poverty.
Plus, being black means more of a chance of a cop harassing you, less of a chance of people believing your story, and more of a chance of a jury to convict you.
Add in the other economic things, and it gets worse.
jmurph wrote: Inequality is not a 1 dimensional beast, but the largest axis is wealth.
I think that's the main thing. Well that and family stability. I'm sure race is a factor in some cases, I'm not convinced it's the main barrier or even a large barrier.
Go to a university basically anywhere and ask people studying medicine, law, engineering, science, etc what their background is.... it's overwhelmingly expensive private schools and/or well off parents living in the better parts of town. You do get some people who dragged themselves out of a gakky poor working class town, but the bias is obvious. I don't consider the area I grew up in to be particularly poor, but it's most definitely working class and the proportion of high school students who went on to meaningful university degrees is tiny.
For all the talk of sexism in STEM fields, I can count more females in the engineering department at my university than I can count kids from working class backgrounds.
When the people from those backgrounds are visually distinctive by skin colour, then the disparity it more apparent, but I still think the driving factors aren't race.
But then I guess it has to be a visually distinctive disparity before anyone gives a crap.
But just because there's a relationship doesn't mean you expect perfect correlation, crime rate is obviously influenced by a lot of factors.
But anyway, I think you're the main one wanting to turn this in to a discussion about incarceration rate. It's a pretty widely held belief that America's war on drugs isn't the most intelligent approach, other western countries manage similar crime levels without locking up 1 in every 30 or so young males.
I've often wondered if it's a cultural problem. I read somewhere (can't remember the source right now) that in the 60's about 90 percent of black children had a house with a father that worked. Today it said only about 40 percent have that. Now I think everyone can agree that racism was much worse back then. So what changed. I'm honestly asking if anyone knows.
From watching it you can see what appears to be a pistol on the ground as the cops are over Scott's body. At one point one of the cops picks it up. Video is not that great though and the shooting itself is heard but not shown.
Wife remained admirably calm during the whole thing.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But just because there's a relationship doesn't mean you expect perfect correlation, crime rate is obviously influenced by a lot of factors.
I've never claimed there is a perfect correlation.
But anyway, I think you're the main one wanting to turn this in to a discussion about incarceration rate.
That would be why I keep trying to bring it up, and why zeroing in on the murder rate, an insignificant amount of total US crime, is not really a response to any of the things I've mentioned.
I've claimed that a lot of black men end up in prison, and they end up in prison disproportionately. That the large growth of our incarceration rate since 1980 heavily effected African Americans more so than it affected hispanics or whites., and that growth was foremost driven by the War on Drugs.
It would seem rather relevant to a discussion of whether or not the system has failed African Americans, and especially relevant to explaining why they might have a significant underlying frustration with law enforcement and the criminal justice system. We could talk about how higher police presence in black neighborhoods also results in a much higher frequency of general citations for African Americans, but I suppose if I try talking about that someone will just harp on about how Blacks must jay walk more frequently than whites so why bother?
redleger wrote: Why is she lying saying he has no gun, when you can see what definitely looks like a gun laying next to his corpse, which in no way resembles a book?
Without having seen the video myself I can't help but wonder, if the shooting wasn't shown and the gun is on the ground, how do you know it's his gun?
redleger wrote: Why is she lying saying he has no gun, when you can see what definitely looks like a gun laying next to his corpse, which in no way resembles a book?
The corresponding argument is that it was a "drop gun", and not actually the victim's. I haven't watched the video in question, as I have no desire to see a man's last moments of life, but I'm not going to make any judgements until at least more than one video is released to show for sure what he was or was not carrying.
One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.
But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.
I think police are way too liberal with their use of lethal force, but I really don't think "get fired regardless of whether it was justified" is the solution. Not when we could just clear the air of this blue wall bull crap and start dealing with problem officers. If accounts are to be believed, a small number of them drag down entire forces. Seems a more sensible starting point XD
Putting cops in the position of getting fired might reduce shootings, but I don't think the other results of that policy change are going to be to our liking.
skyth wrote: One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.
We don't have a full picture yet.
If he had his gun in his hands... that's not "open carry". That's brandishing, which is illegal.
skyth wrote: One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.
We don't have a full picture yet.
If he had his gun in his hands... that's not "open carry". That's brandishing, which is illegal.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Nope.
Care to elaborarate? Nope? Why is this a bad idea?
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Nope.
Care to elaborarate? Nope? Why is this a bad idea?
One, sometimes peace is brought about by violence. When you threaten an officers livelihood, it is going to add another layer of hesitation to a decision that may cost them theirs, or someone else's lives. That is unacceptable. A police officers job has never been to not take lives. It is a part of their duty. It is why, even those European nations who consider themselves "morally superior" to us, still have armed police.
The need for it is there, no matter where you are, and to threaten it, would be gravely irresponsible.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.
But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.
Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.
But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.
Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.
Just a friendly reminder...
It's not 'thou shalt not kill'... it's 'thou shalt not murder'.
But, I'll expand what djones stated. There is justified killing and we all must be cognizant of the differences between justified killing vs murder/manslaughter.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Nope.
Care to elaborarate? Nope? Why is this a bad idea?
One, sometimes peace is brought about by violence. When you threaten an officers livelihood, it is going to add another layer of hesitation to a decision that may cost them theirs, or someone else's lives. That is unacceptable. A police officers job has never been to not take lives. It is a part of their duty. It is why, even those European nations who consider themselves "morally superior" to us, still have armed police.
.
The need for it is there, no matter where you are, and to threaten it, would be gravely irresponsible.
Don't get me wrong, I don't blame an officer for doing his or her duty, even if that means the unfortunate death of someone else, but I want that hesitation in my police officers. I don't want the kill first, ask questions later policy. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a lot of European cops don't carry firearms.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.
But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.
Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.
Just a friendly reminder...
It's not 'thou shalt not kill'... it's 'thou shalt not murder'.
But, I'll expand what djones stated. There is justified killing and we all must be cognizant of the differences between justified killing vs murder/manslaughter.
No it isn't "murder" it is a much broader word. The original text (retzach) implies "destroy" or "break to pieces" no intent or motive is suggested.. Again, I was just throwing this out there as a thought game, but I'll defend it. We would still be aware of the distinction between murder and manslaughter and justified defense.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.
But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.
Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.
Becoming a cop represents a significant investment of time and energy. Automatically losing their job because of a death is unreasonable.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.
But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.
Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.
Becoming a cop represents a significant investment of time and energy. Automatically losing their job because of a death is unreasonable.
Sometimes, it really is "kill or be killed".
I agree, it is a tough position and a tough call. I want the people making that call thinking about it, not knowing they get a get out of jail card.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I agree, it is a tough position and a tough call. I want the people making that call thinking about it, not knowing they get a get out of jail card.
Except sometimes it isn't possible to think about it. If someone starts shooting at you (or at innocent victims) you aren't going to have time to think "should I shoot back, or should I be concerned about my career". And the simple fact is that sometimes the use of force, even lethal force, by the police is entirely justified and not controversial at all. A blanket "you lose your career if you are involved in one of these cases" policy does not work at all.
skyth wrote: One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.
Open Carry in NC means in a visible holster or slung (long arm), NOT in your hand with the cops repeatedly yelling at you to Drop It! (as the wife's video clearly shows they do).
And you MUST be a legal hand gun owner to open carry. His record may well have precluded that capability.
And in NC you need a permit to legally buy a handgun. And to get a permit you must take a course which very clearly lays out the relevant laws for you.
So, no, NC being an Open Carry state is not grounds to vindicate his behavior.
It's not 'thou shalt not kill'... it's 'thou shalt not murder'.
Not to start a theological/biblical debate, but which translation are you using for that, and are you using that exact same translated edition for all things, or are you just picking and choosing from different translations like so many others do to support their preferred arguments?
skyth wrote: One thing I saw and I'm not sure if it's true...but NC is an open carry state. If he had a gun, that 'shouldn't' be grounds for the police to harrass or accost him. Especially since they were there for someone else.
Open Carry in NC means in a visible holster or slung (long arm), NOT in your hand with the cops repeatedly yelling at you to Drop It! (as the wife's video clearly shows they do).
And you MUST be a legal hand gun owner to open carry. His record may well have precluded that capability.
And in NC you need a permit to legally buy a handgun. And to get a permit you must take a course which very clearly lays out the relevant laws for you.
So, no, NC being an Open Carry state is not grounds to vindicate his behavior.
Like I said, not familiar with the NC laws and brought the topic up for discussion. I haven't seen any reputable source that he was brandishing...just that he allegedly had a gun. Granted, I haven't been paying all that much attention to the details of the shooting. It's not really relevant to the riots. It may be the flashpoint, but it's not really the root cause.
To end a theological/biblical debate, the original Hebrew word is ratzakh (literally r-s-h because ancient Hebrew has no written vowels). The word most directly means kill, and the total wording of the Sixth commandment literally reads as "no killing whatsoever."
However there are different words for "kill" in the Bible. Ratzakh is for example never used in the context of war. The Hebrews did not have a word for "murder" at this time, but generally when ratzakh is invoked it is interpreted as meaning "unlawful killing." So basically murder. The Bible has a whole host of rules about when it is and is not lawful to kill.
It's not 'thou shalt not kill'... it's 'thou shalt not murder'.
Not to start a theological/biblical debate, but which translation are you using for that, and are you using that exact same translated edition for all things, or are you just picking and choosing from different translations like so many others do to support their preferred arguments?
The 10 commandment and early scriptures (old testament) was written in old Hebrew... as such "murder" (ratzah I think) was distinct from "kill".
New King James Version Bible also says uses "murder" (Exodus 20:13)... although, I'm pretty sure the original King James had "kill" (I could be wrong... going from memory here).
So, from a philosophical standpoint, when someone says they believe in the principle of "thou shalt not kill" it's a bit ambiguous... because it implies strongly that taking life in every case is a sin. Which doesn't square with the new/old testaments as there are plenty of prescription of righteous killings.
So, the proper scriptural context to "thou shalt not murder", is simply a prohibition against unlawful killing.
And yet, somehow, both of you completely missed the actual point I was making. I already know full well what you both said. My point, which I thought was obviously stated in the second half of what I posted, was the hypocrisy of using different versions to justify different arguments. But, I'm thinking this thread is not the place to further that discussion.
Tannhauser42 wrote: And yet, somehow, both of you completely missed the actual point I was making. I already know full well what you both said. My point, which I thought was obviously stated in the second half of what I posted, was the hypocrisy of using different versions to justify different arguments.
But, I'm thinking this thread is not the place to further that discussion.
I don't think it's "picking and choosing" which versions to justify different arguments.
The tenets of "thou shalt not kill" was always understood(theologically) to mean unjustified killing.
Regardless, it's not really relevant. We live in the United States of America under the rule of law, not the Kingdom of Israel under the law of God's will. We are freely able to interpret for ourselves what defines unjustified killing here.
The debate is over the accusation that we define that too loosely, and people are dying who do not need to.
Ouze wrote: Watching the wife's video in the Scott case clarified absolutely nothing. I have no idea, or opinion, what happened there.
Really? No opinion on a convicted felon illegally in possession of a firearm being repeatedly told to drop it for a long-ass time, with said firearm both visible on camera and recovered at the scene with fingerprints and DNA, getting shot after failing to comply?
I don't think all the speculating is really productive. Eventually the police will release an official statement with their full version of what happened. Maybe that'll be disputed, maybe not. Right now I think we're just going to run ourselves in circles more than anything. What happened here is even murkier than a lot of other cases, simply because there seems to be so much rumor about what happened.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: I would like to see what he was doing to cause the wife to switch from "don't shot him!" To "don't do it!" Addressing the husband.
Yes, there was a real suspicious tone shift there - it definitely seemed to me she went from addressing the cops to addressing him. I wish it was more clear what was going on. Maybe the dashcam video gives a better picture.
skyth wrote: hmmm...I read that someone else has a video showing the 'gun on the ground next to the body was actually a black glove thrown by a police officer.
Officer in red goes over the gun after the shooting and stays there.
Police recovered a gun at the scene. Either he had one, or they planted it.
skyth wrote: hmmm...I read that someone else has a video showing the 'gun on the ground next to the body was actually a black glove thrown by a police officer.
The object I (and others) believed could be a gun in the wife's cell phone video may be a glove. That does not preclude a gun having been found. Obviously that video does not show everything.
I strongly suspect that the wife/family/their lawyer would have REALLY made a stink of it all if after watching the dash cam video genuinely did not think Scott had a gun. The fact they didn't do so is an indicator.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sounds like cops agreed to release the dash cam video, so we'll see/know more soon.
Is that the only video? The officer's head blocks the camera at the moment of import XD Literally everything we would want to see to know what happened is obscured, either by the officer's head blocking the camera, or another officer blocking our line of sight to Mr. Scott. It looks like the officer in the red shirt might be crouching down and reaching for the ground, but before we can see if he's doing that or something else he leaves the field of view. EDIT: Looking more closely at the very (very) brief moment we can actually see Scott outside his car, it looks like he's looking away (no hands raised), and then turns to look at the officer who came from behind his vehicle. Then the next time we see him he's on the ground, standing a little bit further back from where we first saw him.
This video does not make this look like a good shoot.
Actually I'm curious about this;
Officers were going to continue on their original mission until an officer spotted a weapon in the vehicle, Putney said.
“It was not lawful for him to possess a firearm,” Putney said. “There was a crime he committed and the gun exacerbated the situation.”
What exactly was unlawful about Scott having a firearm? He wasn't an excon as far as I know, and how does just having a firearm make it evident he committed some other crime? Is there more to this quote? The interview with the police chief is honestly shady as feth. He completely side steps all questions about the firearm that Scott was supposed to have, and I don't see it anywhere on the body came video. It's clearly not in his right hand in the brief moment we see him standing outside his car, and I don't see it anywhere on the ground in the video.
It could be there of course. The video quality is pretty shoddy, the officer's head continually obstructs what we can see, and Scott seems to be wearing dark pants that are well colored to obscure a "tactical' (dark colored ) weapon.
I haven't seen any mention of it thus far that he was.
Reviewing the wife's cell phone footage, I still don't see a gun, but her tone does definitely change significantly to address her husband, but the whole time she's doing that the camera is either at the ground or getting a nice shot of some cars.
On the other hand, I was totally right that things have not gotten better in Charlotte (since I lived in the area);
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.
But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.
Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.
Becoming a cop represents a significant investment of time and energy. Automatically losing their job because of a death is unreasonable.
Sometimes, it really is "kill or be killed".
It requires as little as a 2 year degree and sixteen weeks of training. Being a cop is not all that difficult, not given the amount of power (literally the power of life and death) placed into their hands.
I haven't seen any mention of it thus far that he was.
Reviewing the wife's cell phone footage, I still don't see a gun, but her tone does definitely change significantly to address her husband, but the whole time she's doing that the camera is either at the ground or getting a nice shot of some cars.
On the other hand, I was totally right that things have not gotten better in Charlotte (since I lived in the area);
He had a record. In 2004, he was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, misdemeanor assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats. All charges, as far as I know, stemmed from the same incident (or series of incidents on that date). He took a plea to misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge, and the others were dropped.
In screen shots of the footage, he was wearing what appeared to be an ankle holster. In another, he appeared to be taking a stance to shield the handgun with his leg while holding it. It a common disarmament prevention and ready tactic, and almost instinctual, even used by police officers. That why is was taught in civilian and law enforcement circles for some time.
And a gun was recovered. It was a Colt Mustang .380. It was cocked and locked, which means it was in "Condition One" and ready to go. Just had to brush off the thumb safety to fire.
Unfortunately, the police are now being accused of "planting" the weapon. Just as I figured would happen.
Gordon Shumway wrote: How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.
Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.
But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.
Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.
Becoming a cop represents a significant investment of time and energy. Automatically losing their job because of a death is unreasonable.
Sometimes, it really is "kill or be killed".
It requires as little as a 2 year degree and sixteen weeks of training. Being a cop is not all that difficult, not given the amount of power (literally the power of life and death) placed into their hands.
And yearly recertification. And certification every time new equipment is introduced. And specialized training if needed. And policy training and seminars. And on and on.
Training, certification, etc doesn't end when you get your certification. And not meaning to be snotty or an ass, but unless you've worn the badge and worked the streets, don't presume to make claims on how "difficult" the job is as statement of fact.
oldravenman3025 wrote: He had a record. In 2004, he was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, misdemeanor assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats. All charges, as far as I know, stemmed from the same incident (or series of incidents on that date). He took a plea to misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge, and the others were dropped.
Is it confirmed? There's so many rumors swirling, I'm taking everything with a gain of salt.
In screen shots of the footage, he was wearing what appeared to be an ankle holster.
It does look like there's something around his right ankle when the police approach his body in the body cam video. You can only see it very briefly before the red shirted officer obstructs our view, but it's definitely there.
And a gun was recovered. It was a Colt Mustang .380. It was cocked and locked, which means it was in "Condition One" and ready to go. Just had to brush off the thumb safety to fire.
I believe they recovered a gun. There have been evidence photos released of it on the pavement.
I'm highly skeptical right now that Scott was holding it though. In the dash cam video, we see his left side about as well as these poor quality videos allow, and it doesn't look like he's holding anything. In the body cam video, we see his right side, and he also doesn't look like he's holding anything. The "whatever it is" is definitely on his right ankle, so I'd take that to mean he's right handed and would have had the gun in his right. We have a pretty good view between all three videos released (dash, body, and cell), of the immediate area after the shooting and I've looked but I don't see the gun anywhere. It might be under his body, or maybe it slid under a car though, or perhaps the red shirt officer, who in the videos crouches by Scott and seems to reach for something took possession of the weapon or maybe knocked it away?
I concede that the video quality is piss poor, and we never get a good look at Scott. Colt Mustangs are pretty small aren't they? It's possible we just can't see the gun very well.
Unfortunately, the police are now being accused of "planting" the weapon. Just as I figured would happen.
Well it wouldn't be the first time. Bad cops drag the good ones into the gak right along with them. The issue is that we have three videos that give us a nice variety of angles of the incident, and a gun is not apparent in any of them. The burden should be on the police to prove the shooting was justified, not a dead man to prove it wasn't. These videos are not supporting the police's story right now, but who knows what high tech video technology might reveal later. I'm fully willing to admit a gun might be there, but they're just too grainy for me to make any out.
Even then though, should the cops really be shooting a guy whose only action is to keep his arms perfectly at his side and back up? The dashcam video makes the entire encounter look like bs. Gun or no gun, he was not acting aggressively, and I see no reason to have fired at him as suddenly as they did. There's a whole slew of questions that could be asked about this incident. If I can't see the gun, imagine what little witnesses could see? It's no wonder people rioted. Standing from a distance or at the right angle, it looks like nothing more than cops gunning a man down for backing away from his car.
oldravenman3025 wrote: He had a record. In 2004, he was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, misdemeanor assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats. All charges, as far as I know, stemmed from the same incident (or series of incidents on that date). He took a plea to misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge, and the others were dropped.
Is it confirmed? There's so many rumors swirling, I'm taking everything with a gain of salt.
In screen shots of the footage, he was wearing what appeared to be an ankle holster.
It does look like there's something around his right ankle when the police approach his body in the body cam video. You can only see it very briefly before the red shirted officer obstructs our view, but it's definitely there.
And a gun was recovered. It was a Colt Mustang .380. It was cocked and locked, which means it was in "Condition One" and ready to go. Just had to brush off the thumb safety to fire.
I believe they recovered a gun. There have been evidence photos released of it on the pavement.
I'm highly skeptical right now that Scott was holding it though. In the dash cam video, we see his left side about as well as these poor quality videos allow, and it doesn't look like he's holding anything. In the body cam video, we see his right side, and he also doesn't look like he's holding anything. The "whatever it is" is definitely on his right ankle, so I'd take that to mean he's right handed and would have had the gun in his right. We have a pretty good view between all three videos released (dash, body, and cell), of the immediate area after the shooting and I've looked but I don't see the gun anywhere. It might be under his body, or maybe it slid under a car though, or perhaps the red shirt officer, who in the videos crouches by Scott and seems to reach for something took possession of the weapon or maybe knocked it away?
I concede that the video quality is piss poor, and we never get a good look at Scott. Colt Mustangs are pretty small aren't they? It's possible we just can't see the gun very well.
Unfortunately, the police are now being accused of "planting" the weapon. Just as I figured would happen.
Well it wouldn't be the first time. Bad cops drag the good ones into the gak right along with them. The issue is that we have three videos that give us a nice variety of angles of the incident, and a gun is not apparent in any of them. The burden should be on the police to prove the shooting was justified, not a dead man to prove it wasn't. These videos are not supporting the police's story right now, but who knows what high tech video technology might reveal later. I'm fully willing to admit a gun might be there, but they're just too grainy for me to make any out.
Even then though, should the cops really be shooting a guy whose only action is to keep his arms perfectly at his side and back up? The dashcam video makes the entire encounter look like bs. Gun or no gun, he was not acting aggressively, and I see no reason to have fired at him as suddenly as they did. There's a whole slew of questions that could be asked about this incident. If I can't see the gun, imagine what little witnesses could see? It's no wonder people rioted. Standing from a distance or at the right angle, it looks like nothing more than cops gunning a man down for backing away from his car.
As far as I know, his past troubles with the law comes from public records. Other charges in N.C. is a charge for DUI in Gaston County, N.C. last year.
Also, he was arrested and charged in Texas for evading arrest and served 15 months in 2005, according to records from Bexar County. In July 2005, he was sentenced to seven years in Texas State prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was released in 2011, according to a spokesman from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
In 1992, he was was a frequent flyer in Charleston County, S.C, with several arrests including simple assault, carrying a concealed weapon (non-firearm), contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and aggravated assault . In all instances he plead guilty. But for the aggravated assault charge, the charge was plea bargained down to a lesser one.
In 1995, in S.C., he was arrested and charged with assault with intent to kill. The charge was reduced via plea bargain.
As far as the holster goes, there is also this shot of what looks like an ankle holster:
Spoiler:
And this shot (the same one where he looks like he's shielding a gun). His pants leg is slid up over what looks like an ankle holster:
Spoiler:
You are absolutely right about the poor vid quality. It makes is hard to really come to any concrete conclusions without some sort of digital enhancements. I'm just going by what it looks like to me, based on personal experience. I could be 100% wrong on this.
Colt Mustangs are indeed small handguns with small grips (being a lower capacity single stack pistol for concealed carry). I had one some years back that I traded for a .38 Colt Agent. Even though my hands are not that large, they completely hid the grip. Supposedly, Scott had big hands. You are correct that the gun could be hard to see from a distance, especially with the crappy vid quality.
Here is a released pic of the weapon recovered at the scene just to give folks who haven't seen the pics an idea of the gun's size. :
Spoiler:
There are bad cops out there as well as idiots (God knows I worked with enough of them. The dumb bastards.). It was even worse when I was in Corrections work. So, I agree that those bad apples give police a bad name. My problem is the tendency of some people to jump the gun (no pun intended) and assume the worst without evidence. As the Sherry Hall and Betty Shelby incidents prove (among others), the bad cops tend to get burned when they screw up big time. You have exceptions. But it's not as widespread as some people think, especially people in the black community.
The concept of "throw downs" is one from back in my Pop's days as a cop in the 1970's and 1980's. A lot of cops did indeed carry a "throw down piece". It was mostly to cover their asses if some kid jumped out at them with a toy gun in poor lighting, and got shot. In those days, a cop could very easily get crucified as a cold blooded murderer for an accidental shooting. But in my time in law enforcement, I never knew of any who carried a throw down piece. Not to say that nobody did. Just that it was rare enough that I never heard of any who did. At least, in the jurisdictions I worked in. And I never engaged in that practice. I consider it to be a chicken move. If I screwed up, I would've owned up to it. I can't stand anybody who doesn't man up and take responsibility for their actions, cop, civvie, or criminal.
I would prefer if they would clean up the images at some point, so we can see the details better. It would answer a lot of questions about this incident.
Looking at the still frame rather than a moving picture though, it does look like he might have something in his hand. But with how grainy the images are, it could easily just be a shadow as a gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oldravenman3025 wrote: As far as I know, his past troubles with the law comes from public records. Other charges in N.C. is a charge for DUI in Gaston County, N.C. last year.
Also, he was arrested and charged in Texas for evading arrest and served 15 months in 2005, according to records from Bexar County. In July 2005, he was sentenced to seven years in Texas State prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was released in 2011, according to a spokesman from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
In 1992, he was was a frequent flyer in Charleston County, S.C, with several arrests including simple assault, carrying a concealed weapon (non-firearm), contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and aggravated assault . In all instances he plead guilty. But for the aggravated assault charge, the charge was plea bargained down to a lesser one.
In 1995, in S.C., he was arrested and charged with assault with intent to kill. The charge was reduced via plea bargain.
Yeah I found a news article giving a biography of him; Stuff
oldravenman3025 wrote: But it's not as widespread as some people think, especially people in the black community.
Well part of the problem has nothing to do with the police, but public policy (which the police have limited control over). It's inevitable that black communities have more negative interactions with the police because their neighborhoods are more heavily patrolled, and this comes along with the other dominoes of generational experiences of injustice and abuse, and a court system that basically screws poor people in general, and is even worse for Blacks who are disproportionately poor and have a long history of zero trust in the systems of government that surround them. It's not like I think there are slews of cops who wake up in the morning and decide "lets go abuse some black people." That's not what's going on.
This is an institutional problem with multiple levels of contributing factors. The police are at ground level, and are the most visible symbol of the discontent felt with the system as a whole. Unfortunately we all deal with cops more frequently than we deal with law makers, so they get the "bullet" so to speak for the law enforcement and criminal justice systems' larger failings and inequities. EDIT: By extension, I don't think it's that the police like shooting black men, so much as I think that the procedures on the use of lethal force are too liberal. Of course more black men will be killed in such circumstances, since black communities are where a lot of police are.
I guess it's easier to apply blame externally than it is to fix the internal problems in a community. Though I don't know what the former achieves, recognition that you're in a crap situation because of things done in generations past? Ok, but I don't see how that helps anyone now.
Isn't the 'why' something is the way it is an important part of changing the way something is. Otherwise if you are in a hole you may just end up digging down further in your attempt to dig yourself out of it.
We are all under the shadow of our pasts. Germany is still dealing with the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, history does not go away just because it was yesterday.
I guess it's easier to apply blame externally than it is to fix the internal problems in a community. Though I don't know what the former achieves, recognition that you're in a crap situation because of things done in generations past? Ok, but I don't see how that helps anyone now.
Isn't the 'why' something is the way it is an important part of changing the way something is. Otherwise if you are in a hole you may just end up digging down further in your attempt to dig yourself out of it.
We are all under the shadow of our pasts. Germany is still dealing with the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, history does not go away just because it was yesterday.
Of course recognising the past is important, but I specifically said blaming external things instead of fixing the current internal problems.
You can recognise that crap from past generations, but it's not going to stop your bastard son dropping out of school and trying to make a living selling drugs or your unwed daughter getting pregnant and just repeating the cycle again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: It's inevitable that black communities have more negative interactions with the police because their neighborhoods are more heavily patrolled.
But do you have any evidence that this is actually discrimination, or just cops going where crime is having the largest negative impact?
As I said on previous pages, even in predominantly white areas you get police targeting poorer neighbourhoods at times because that's where the most stabbings, shootings, domestic violence, etc occur. If people are just covertly selling and buying drugs but it doesn't lead to thievery, muggings and violent crimes, I'd suggest the cops wouldn't give a feth.
If the police weren't trying to help the problems, they'd just go to richer neighbourhoods and hand out fines for menial infractions, more money in it and less dangerous for the cops.
skyth wrote: Richer neighborhoods are more likely to complain and 'fight' back.
I disagree. I'd say richer neighbourhoods are more likely to just pay the fines they can afford and get on with life than start a riot or resist arrest or make a scene.
I guess it's easier to apply blame externally than it is to fix the internal problems in a community. Though I don't know what the former achieves, recognition that you're in a crap situation because of things done in generations past? Ok, but I don't see how that helps anyone now.
Isn't the 'why' something is the way it is an important part of changing the way something is. Otherwise if you are in a hole you may just end up digging down further in your attempt to dig yourself out of it.
We are all under the shadow of our pasts. Germany is still dealing with the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, history does not go away just because it was yesterday.
Of course recognising the past is important, but I specifically said blaming external things instead of fixing the current internal problems.
You can recognise that crap from past generations, but it's not going to stop your bastard son dropping out of school and trying to make a living selling drugs or your unwed daughter getting pregnant and just repeating the cycle again.
I imagine that recognising the past of that bastard son actually would help that bastard son from dropping out of school and trying to make a living selling drugs or an unwed (not that marriage matters so much, but I assume that you don't mean 'marriage' in the legal sense) daughter from getting pregnant and repeating the cycle. If the past is acknowledged then at least it can be recognised as a cycle and be stopped somewhere along the line.
Or perhaps more importantly, if the greater public knew the past of a certain group which is having poor results in terms of educational, judicial and financial outcomes maybe said public would be more sympathetic to taking steps to reverse these poor outcomes.
I guess there is a fine line between what constitutes recognition and what constitutes blame and how much of either is actually useful for a better future..
I just wish more people understood more about history and I dislike hearing comments that basically write it off as unimportant to current events.
skyth wrote: Richer neighborhoods are more likely to complain and 'fight' back.
I disagree. I'd say richer neighbourhoods are more likely to just pay the fines they can afford and get on with life than start a riot or resist arrest or make a scene.
By fight back, I meant politically. If cops started trying to use affluent areas as income sources, they would be hearing from their elected supervisors pretty quickly.
Plus, there is less of a 'need' to treat affluent areas as an income source since the property tax base there is a lot larger. They already have a decent income stream.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But do you have any evidence that this is actually discrimination,
Crime rates are based on police data on reports and arrests. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. What little independent evidence there is, like studies of drug use, dismiss the idea that blacks commit more crime on the whole.
Why is it that despite drug use being radically higher among whites than blacks in total sum and per capita, that the prison population of people incarcerated for drug offenses is almost even, with still more blacks imprisoned than whites (15% vs 16% (page 16)). Someone feel free to do the per capita conversion on that. It's not going to be pretty . 57% of the blacks in prison are in prison for drug crimes (BJS study page 17). There's a reason I keep harping on it. One because it represents a very huge chunk of known crime, and two it isn't exactly a crime that gets reported so much as the cops find it because they happen to be there. Take the very case that prompted the riot that prompted this thread. If a black man smokes a joint in his car and no cop is around to see it, did he commit a crime? Yes, but it won't be recorded in the crime rate. Police presence directly effects reported crime rates. This reality is even misconstrued by idiots who try to claim that the police increase crime, when the reality is that crime goes up in higher police presence because the police happen to be around to see more stuff going on.
Crime rates != more crime. They equal more crime being recorded.
If we just take recorded crime at its face, we get insanity like this;
You know what's weird about that map? Actually the first thing that stands out isn't Charlotte at all but that little area at the bottom; Pineville. Pineville has a staggeringly (like seriously, blows your mind away) crime rate compared to Charlotte. 1,878 vs 338. It's 80% white. By the logic of going where the crime is, I sure hope Pineville has one of the largest police departments in the US (it doesn't). And that's because police don't actually make decisions about where to patrol based solely on crime rates, and yes, the policy decisions that put more cops in black neighborhoods operate of a discriminatory presumption that has existed since the 1930s that blacks commit more crime period.
If the police weren't trying to help the problems
Wanting to help, and helping effectively are not necessarily the same thing. Police presume their presence is a deterrent to crime, even though the Kansas City Preventative Police Experiment found nearly 50 years ago the police presence has a non-significant effect on crime (and subsequent studies have either confirmed this or countered it but failed to be repeatable).
Discrimination isn't one thing. It's not always just a conscious decision one person makes. An entire society can discriminate based on its structure. American society is built such that it discriminates against minorities, the poor, immigrants, and excons. There's one group of people who overwhelmingly falls into all three categories. Well technically two, but we're not talking about the other one in this thread (Native Americans are actually leading the way this year on "killed by cops per capita" which for all I know is a first for them since the 1800s!). It's not like any of us sat down and agreed to that and have to feel guilty over it. 200+ years of our past have made things that way. We didn't ask for it, it's just the hand we were dealt.
I don't actually know what would need to be done to start redressing many of these problems. You'd need someone a hell of a lot smarter than I am, with a lot more knowledge about community outreach and social engineering. I do know though that it won't be easy, because when is fixing long standing social problems ever? It won't be cheap, and it won't happen if the larger population remains in denial about what the problem.
Honestly this is probably impossible to know right now. Historians, Sociologists, and Political Scientists are still largely clueless why Crime Rates in the US spiked in the 60s, and suddenly sharply declined starting in the 90s. The drop and rise are poorly defined, and poorly understood in the grand scheme.
The spike is well understood as being related to the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War opposition, and leftist advocacy...it is the decline that's puzzling.
d-usa wrote: They say they noticed him rolling a joint, so that's the "crime" that was exacerbated by having a gun.
Which is dumb as people roll cigarettes all the time.
Open Carry in NC means in a visible holster or slung (long arm), NOT in your hand with the cops repeatedly yelling at you to Drop It! (as the wife's video clearly shows they do).
So attempting to "drop it" could easily be construed, by police, as an attempt to "draw it".
Open Carry in NC means in a visible holster or slung (long arm), NOT in your hand with the cops repeatedly yelling at you to Drop It! (as the wife's video clearly shows they do).
So attempting to "drop it" could easily be construed, by police, as an attempt to "draw it".
Seems like gak policy to me.
"Drop It' when it is in your hand is not a hard to grasp concept. Anyone legally carrying in NC knows when approached by a cop for ANYTHING you MUST (by law) inform the officer you are carrying (concealed or not). A cop will not yell 'Drop It! repeatedly if the weapon is holstered. But build the straw man you are comfortable fighting.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But do you have any evidence that this is actually discrimination,
Crime rates are based on police data on reports and arrests. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. What little independent evidence there is, like studies of drug use, dismiss the idea that blacks commit more crime on the whole.
You keep using drugs as an example and seem to be missing the point that I don't really care
Yes, drug charges are why most people are in jail, but high drug use isn't why an area will be more heavily policed. It's only when the drug use lead to violent crimes that an area is going to be policed more.
My assertation that blacks commit crime at a higher rate has little to do with drug use or incarceration rates because I'm well aware of America's war on drugs and think it's not a good policy.... BUT I am dubious that menial drug charges have a great influence on the distribution of police resources. My thought that blacks commit crime at a higher rate is based on murder, non-negligent manslaughter and robbery charges being higher among black (and although I'm sure the FBI stats are incomplete, but according to them I wouldn't say there is actually a huge bias in rate of drug use arrests between blacks and whites, which leads me to believe the fact there's more blacks than whites in jail for drug related charges means there were probably other circumstances like violent crimes related to drug use).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: You keep using drugs as an example and seem to be missing the point that I don't really care
Gee why would I keep bringing up the charge the represents nearly half the prison population, more than half of the black prison population, and the plurality of arrests? It's almost like they're the most committed crimes in the country by a very health margin or something.
I realized you don't care some time ago. You're happy to mount a complete dismissal based on your own supposition, but unfortunately your not caring is irrelevant because you can't make the stats go away by not caring. Harping on the the US' low and increasingly low violent crime rate does not support the numbers we see, because it's not what people keep getting arrested for and its not what most people who go through the criminal justice system are charged with. There are more sex offense charges than murders in this country, and I don't see anyone arguing we need to police white neighborhoods more because whites commit sex offenses at a radically higher rate than blacks.
It might have something to do with the fact this thread is about the Charlotte riots rather than drug and sex offences.
I mean, obviously the drug discussion is an interesting one, but I don't think it tells a story of why blacks are shot by police at a high rate which in turn leads to the riots.
You just keep harping on about how drug charges show that black neighbourhoods are more heavily policed and I just don't believe it. I think they're more heavily policed because of violent crime and then get put in prison because of drug related crimes.
No one gives much of a crap if people smoke a bit of weed at home or at college or whatever. They do give a crap when people start getting mugged or you have dealers in parks and on street corners selling to kids or someone gets stabbed/shot.
more because whites commit sex offenses at a radically higher rate than blacks.
Correction, whites get charged with more sex offences, I don't think the rate per population is higher and the thing to remember with sex offences is they only tend to get charged if they get reported. So you can only say whites commit more sex offences if you also know the rate of reporting sex offences is the same.
EDIT: According to the FBI stats, blacks make up 31.2% of rape arrests and 24.6% of sexual assault charges and according to google are 12.3% of the population. So blacks get charged with sex offences at a higher rate. But still, I think it's difficult to make a comparison because reporting rates can vary wildly and skew the results. I would imagine very few sex offences are caught in the act but rather rely on being reported and investigated, so having more cops patrolling a specific area isn't going to be a huge influence one way or the other.
EDIT 2: I'd actually be interested to know if there is evidence that police actively patrol black areas more. Casual observation tells me not really, but I haven't done a close study on it. I know poor communities are often the subject of specific targeted police operations, but as far as having cops generally patrolling around, I've always thought they prefer making an appearance in wealthier areas.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: No one gives much of a crap if people smoke a bit of weed at home or at college or whatever.
46% of the prison population, and Kieth Scott, beg to differ.
Honestly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Police don't generally just stop people walking down the street and ask "have you assaulted anyone lately." They will stop people walking down the street and ask if they have any drugs on them.
But apparently you don't want to talk about drugs because "no one cares." Doesn't make sense, but fine. Lets pretend no one cares about drugs when almost half the people in prison are in prison for them. I mentioned earlier in thread that we weren't even hitting the bigger part of the iceberg, which is non-criminal law enforcement. Stuff like loitering and traffic stops. One of the factors that leads to a lot of these shootings is the rate at which black men are stopped.
This study is about Connecticut, but it's results were very much in line with studies conducted in Ferguson and Dearborn (linked earlier in thread too lazy to find again XD);
The most troubling numbers in the report involve car searches. Cars driven by whites that were pulled over were searched only 2.65 percent of the time, while vehicles driven by blacks and Hispanics were searched 5.7 percent and 5.37 percent of the time, respectively. And yet, contraband was found in the cars driven by whites 32.34 percent of the time, but only in 27 percent of the searches of cars driven by blacks and 24.7 percent of the cars driven by Hispanics was contraband found.
But yeah. Let's not talk about why African Americans might riot about things police do. That's clearly wildly off topic in a thread about African Americans rioting after police did something.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: No one gives much of a crap if people smoke a bit of weed at home or at college or whatever.
46% of the prison population, and Kieth Scott, beg to differ.
Honestly.
So are you being purposely obtuse or are you really that slow that you didn't even read the very next sentence after the one you quoted?
"They do give a crap when people start getting mugged or you have dealers in parks and on street corners selling to kids or someone gets stabbed/shot."
If you really didn't comprehend the fact I was contrasting not caring about harmless drug offences in private vs drug offences related to other crimes that directly impact the community, well, I guess there's not much else to say.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So are you being purposely obtuse or are you really that slow that you didn't even read the very next sentence after the one you quoted?
I responded to this;
"They do give a crap when people start getting mugged or you have dealers in parks and on street corners selling to kids or someone gets stabbed/shot."
With this;
your own supposition
In a previous post (multiple previous posts actually, but I can only say the same thing so many different ways before it becomes apparent your not listening).
It's not my fault you repeat yourself like a broken record and engage absolutely nothing I say while positing your own head cannon, which your free to do of course, but calling me obtuse is rather kettle of you. Fishing through for all these studies and statistics is kind of time consuming, and it's kind of annoying when the response to them is complete dismissal. I'm just hoping people other than you are actually reading some of this and maybe learning something.
The most troubling numbers in the report involve car searches. Cars driven by whites that were pulled over were searched only 2.65 percent of the time, while vehicles driven by blacks and Hispanics were searched 5.7 percent and 5.37 percent of the time, respectively. And yet, contraband was found in the cars driven by whites 32.34 percent of the time, but only in 27 percent of the searches of cars driven by blacks and 24.7 percent of the cars driven by Hispanics was contraband found.
But yeah. Let's not talk about why African Americans might riot about things police do. That's clearly wildly off topic in a thread about African Americans rioting after police did something.
Sorry I didn't see this part when I made my previous post, you must have ninja updated it.
That is a somewhat interesting finding, though before jumping out and screaming "racial discrimination!" you still have to look at the variables which could affect it.
There are several variables that will increase your likelihood of getting pulled over and searched. Depending on the location, you might be more likely to be pulled over if you're driving a crap car. Are more blacks driving crap cars?
If you're driving a nice car through the back streets of a rough area, you're probably more likely to be pulled over and asked if you own the car you're driving. Are more blacks driving nice cars through crap neighbourhoods?
If you're driving a bomb of a car away from a park which is a known hot spot for drugs, guess what? You're more likely to be pulled over and have your vehicle searched. Are more blacks driving around known drug hot spots?
The statistic that more blacks are pulled up for vehicle searches while more whites are found with drugs doesn't mean whites are more likely to have drugs, it may simply mean that blacks are in positions which increases their chances of being searched while actually being law abiding.... while more whites are less likely to be in positions where they are suspected of drug possession, yet when they do put themselves in such positions they probably are possessing drugs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: It's not my fault you repeat yourself like a broken record and engage absolutely nothing I say...
Pot, kettle, black.
You post uncompelling arguments that I don't feel like engaging in, you obviously feel the same way about me the way you pick individual lines from my posts to respond to and go off tangentially to.
Ok, so let me just ask outright, in short what do YOU think the problem is?
I think the problem is blacks typically live in low socio-economic situations and we live in a capitalist society rather than a communist/socialist one so the way to fix the problem is to give people the best chance of getting out of that situation. Address those communities with better education, better community outreach programs, fostering a sense of both self and community pride, have people in positions of power/respect/influence highlighting that kids can do better than their parents if they are willing to put in the effort. What I DON'T think helps the problem is externalising the problems from those communities and fostering a victim mentality. I don't think it helps to the point where it can actually be harmful if people of influence and the media act to incite the populace and level blame rather than encourage, unite and uplift the populace. EDIT: And I could definitely agree that America's war on drugs is quite possibly doing more harm than good.
I don't think racial discrimination is not a problem, I just question whether it is the core problem now (opposed to historically) and whether focusing on it does benefit to the predominantly poor black communities. I am yet to see a compelling argument to convince me otherwise (though I fully admit any studies on the topic are always going to be difficult because there's so many factors other than skin colour that influence things).
My stance is usualy correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, just because having dark skin is somewhat correlated with XXXXX doesn't mean XXXXX is caused because people have dark skin.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Sorry I didn't see this part when I made my previous post, you must have ninja updated it.
Yeah that's my bad. Nasty habit I sometimes have @_@
Depending on the location, you might be more likely to be pulled over if you're driving a crap car. Are more blacks driving crap cars?
If you're driving a nice car through the back streets of a rough area, you're probably more likely to be pulled over and asked if you own the car you're driving. Are more blacks driving nice cars through crap neighbourhoods?
If you're driving a bomb of a car away from a park which is a known hot spot for drugs, guess what? You're more likely to be pulled over and have your vehicle searched. Are more blacks driving around known drug hot spots?
The statistic that more blacks are pulled up for vehicle searches while more whites are found with drugs doesn't mean whites are more likely to have drugs, it may simply mean that blacks are in positions which increases their chances of being searched while actually being law abiding.... while more whites are less likely to be in positions where they are suspected of drug possession, yet when they do put themselves in such positions they probably are possessing drugs.
That's a whole lot of supposition that requires stretching the imagination when there is a far more readily apparent reason.
I think the problem is blacks typically live in low socio-economic situations
Agreed. But why do they live in low socio-economic situations? That's the whole point of all this "tangent." You cannot address why Blacks are so disproportionately poor without addressing the past of racism, and you can't address why they stay that way without addressing the ongoing disproportionately negative effect of public policy (of which law enforcement policy is very relevant) on black communities. Pointing that out is not laying all the blame on external factors. Hell, initial police presence surges in black communities way back in the early 80s were partially motivated by black community leaders who wanted them to happen. Lots of people in these communities still want a heavy police presence. I'm not saying we should give criminals a pass if they happen to be black with a "we're sorry we did this to you" get out of jail free card. It's pointing out that we can't just pretend that this problem is completely internal, and unrelated to the outside world. These communities don't exist in a bubble.
I don't think racial discrimination is not a problem, I just question whether it is the core problem now (opposed to historically) and whether focusing on it does benefit to the predominantly poor black communities.
Honestly, the last thing black communities probably want is a bunch of white policy makers from outside their communities walking in and telling them how to fix their problems. I don't see that going over well (even if it would help, it just won't be received well). There's a need for a much more nuanced approach to these communities and their problems, but we've acted like being super hard on crime would eventually remove all the bad eggs keeping them down and they could right themselves on their own.
It's been nearly 30 years, with zero sign of anything of the sort on the horizon.
My stance is usualy correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, just because having dark skin is somewhat correlated with XXXXX doesn't mean XXXXX is caused because people have dark skin.
My argument is that blacks are disproportionately effected by law enforcement policy, and that this is a contributing factor to ongoing problems. It can't be ignored. We've invented the phrase "institutional racism" to define discrimination that exists as part of a system, rather than as an individual bias. We don't exactly make life as an ex-con easy. You can't vote. You struggle to get a job (in a country where it's already somewhat harder for blacks to get hired). Family life is disrupted. It doesn't just stay with you. It effects your children and perpetuates itself.
Ain't No Makin' It by Jay MacLeod, is a book originally written about two groups of inner city youth, one white and one black, and spends a little of its time examining how children are affected by the social conditions of their parents and community, including the absence of fathers who are in prison and the best work available occasionally being on the shady side of the law. The entire book is a pungent refutation of the lie of meritocracy as a means of fixing social problems. It's a good read.
Riddle me this:
so if you were a murderous cop, with witness around, knowing someone had a phone out, and you were repeatedly yelling put the gun down, over and over and over, loudly, why would you then shoot the person.
If I wanted to be a murderous cop, I would shoot .5 seconds after saying once"put the gun down" and then place my drop gun next to him. Nothing about this case screams unlawful shoot. Literally I don't understand why everyone feels the need to stand over a cops shoulder, arm chair general him after the fact, without actual data and then get mad when things turn out in favor of the LEO. I am not a LEO fan but I am a fan of truth. And there is nothing here screaming unlawful shoot after all videos are watched and analyzed as a whole.
redleger wrote: Nothing about this case screams unlawful shoot.
Riddle me this;
Why should it be lawful to shoot a man whose only actions are to back away and keep his hands at his side?
It seems a tad extreme. One need not be murderous for this event to occur. One need not even mean anyone any harm. These events can unfold fast, and things happen suddenly. It's why training is so emphasized. You don't get much time to think. As far as I know such a thing is lawful if the target is armed (and even under circumstances if not). But people aren't just complaining about what the police do, but why they do it, and the justifiable basis upon which policy is formed. People's lives are kind of thought to be important. The police will just have to live with people arm chair generaling them. Pervasive fear of the abuse and misuse of government power is an American past time. It's our shtick.
knowing someone had a phone out,
While not necessarily relevant to any of the incidents in this thread, look up the case of Rayshon Gartly. He was arrested, brought into a police station, and violently beaten with his hands cuffed behind his back by an officer right under a surveillance camera! Or the arrest of Dayshawn Bettway, which was being recorded by multiple bystanders when one of the arresting officers pulled his gun and pointed it at the bystanders demanding they stop filming (the officer, Risel Martinez, lost his job in a heartbeat). As if that isn't insane enough, the officer who pulled the gun later proceeded to assault one of the filmers.
It's amazing the things some people will do even when they know they're being filmed (or at least should know).
redleger wrote: Literally I don't understand why everyone feels the need to stand over a cops shoulder, arm chair general him after the fact, without actual data
Well, conservatives have spent like 30 years saying the government is corrupt and can't be trusted, so I guess we just started believing them And of course the cops had actual data which they refused to release and then lied about why - any reasonable person would find that a bit shady
Anyway I think at least part of it was that the wife claimed the guy got shot by the cops in a car reading a book, and then there were giant riots. At that point you kinda wonder, well, there were giant riots, is it true? Certainly there has been police wrongdoing increasingly caught on video, so the idea it was a bad shoot and that led to rioting doesn't exactly boggle the mind anymore. Police don't really have a presumption of good faith now, especially with the the lies from the police in this case alone:
The chief's shenanigans with the video - he lied and said the new law didn't allow him to release the tape, and then when it turned out that was not true, just hand-waved it away
The FOP's claim that the vast majority of the people arrested were outside instigators. When the meeeedia everyone hates checked that, it turned out 80% of the arrestees were from Charlotte. The FOP then claimed "he wasn't quoting true facts".
Spoiler:
Anyway having seen all the videos, I'm still not 100% sure what happened there - that one cops head in the way! . I certainly saw what appears to be an ankle holster, though. The idea that the cop murdered this guy for no reason in front of a ton of witnesses seems pretty far-fetched from the beginning but OK, it's happened. Then the idea that they planted a drop gun on him - at that point it's just not possible. There are too many people involved for it to be true. The idea that it was a justified shooting starts to become the most likely version of events.
Side note, this story broke the same day but got lost in the noise of Charlotte. Just a little more erosion of the presumption of good faith.
Well, conservatives have spent like 30 years saying the government is corrupt and can't be trusted, so I guess we just started believing them And of course the cops had actual data which they refused to release and then lied about why - any reasonable person would find that a bit shady
redleger wrote: Literally I don't understand why everyone feels the need to stand over a cops shoulder, arm chair general him after the fact, without actual data
Well, conservatives have spent like 30 years saying the government is corrupt and can't be trusted, so I guess we just started believing them And of course the cops had actual data which they refused to release and then lied about why - any reasonable person would find that a bit shady
Anyway I think at least part of it was that the wife claimed the guy got shot by the cops in a car reading a book, and then there were giant riots. At that point you kinda wonder, well, there were giant riots, is it true? Certainly there has been police wrongdoing increasingly caught on video, so the idea it was a bad shoot and that led to rioting doesn't exactly boggle the mind anymore. Police don't really have a presumption of good faith now, especially with the the lies from the police in this case alone:
The chief's shenanigans with the video - he lied and said the new law didn't allow him to release the tape, and then when it turned out that was not true, just hand-waved it away
The FOP's claim that the vast majority of the people arrested were outside instigators. When the meeeedia everyone hates checked that, it turned out 80% of the arrestees were from Charlotte. The FOP then claimed "he wasn't quoting true facts".
Spoiler:
Anyway having seen all the videos, I'm still not 100% sure what happened there - that one cops head in the way! . I certainly saw what appears to be an ankle holster, though. The idea that the cop murdered this guy for no reason in front of a ton of witnesses seems pretty far-fetched from the beginning but OK, it's happened. Then the idea that they planted a drop gun on him - at that point it's just not possible. There are too many people involved for it to be true. The idea that it was a justified shooting starts to become the most likely version of events.
Side note, this story broke the same day but got lost in the noise of Charlotte. Just a little more erosion of the presumption of good faith.
I do have to concede people do dumb gak in front of witnesses all the time, thinking they are above the law. I however do not see this as being one of those cases. Also as far as having a weapon at your side, but refusing to lawfully follow directions when armed, and being repeatedly told to do so will probably lead to your death every time. Regardless of your feelings on Marijuana usage, any mind altering substance, and a fire arm in a residential area combined becomes an illegal activity. Had he dropped the weapon, not exited his car with it, and then hopped on the ground he would be alive to tell his side of the story, and we would have one less thing to be mad at the big bad government about.
As far as target discrimination, once again I have actual training in this, and probably would have made the same call. I definitely understand that they have very few seconds to make a life altering decision both for the shooter and the shootee.
The gun cops claim was found on Keith Scott had been reported stolen before the 43-year-old black man was shot and killed by a North Carolina officer, sources say.
An unidentified burglar allegedly stole the gun during a residential break-in at some point before the fatal Sept. 20 shooting, police sources told WBTV Monday. The same sources said the burglar admitted selling the gun to Scott.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it looks like his wife knew he had a gun (or at least claimed he had a gun when filing a restraining order against him):
skyth wrote: However, the more important thing is that the officer did not follow procedure and have his body camera on. Wonder what evidence he wanted to hide...
wow, so everything seems to be pointing to a lawful shoot, body cam evidence was released, and for some reason you are thinking there is still some conspiracy? Dude, seriously, this is whats wrong with society sometimes. I want criminals to pay, including LEOs who break the law. This is not one of those cases and in fact, if you watch the videos, you listen, you can see what is undeniably a police officer trying very hard to get this man to cooperate and not shoot him. compare to eye witness accounts where the cops shot without much effort to get compliance first.
Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.
skyth wrote: However, the more important thing is that the officer did not follow procedure and have his body camera on. Wonder what evidence he wanted to hide...
I wouod think the more important thing, and the one that got him you know killed and all, was coming out with a gun and not dropping said gun. You don't step out of a car with a gun in your hand (unless you really really really want to die).
skyth wrote: However, the more important thing is that the officer did not follow procedure and have his body camera on. Wonder what evidence he wanted to hide...
I wouod think the more important thing, and the one that got him you know killed and all, was coming out with a gun and not dropping said gun. You don't step out of a car with a gun in your hand (unless you really really really want to die).
I agree. I think making excuses for criminals is one of the reasons we are in this mess. Now when a LEO breaks the law he has become a criminal, so I am speaking to that too.
The reason that we are in this mess is that the police have lost the respect of the community that they work for. This is a problem that the police need to take responsibility for and solve.
skyth wrote: The reason that we are in this mess is that the police have lost the respect of the community that they work for. This is a problem that the police need to take responsibility for and solve.
No the reason Charlotte is in this mess is because he got kilt. No holes in body no riot.
skyth wrote: The reason that we are in this mess is that the police have lost the respect of the community that they work for. This is a problem that the police need to take responsibility for and solve.
When folks (like the wife and family lawyers in this case) outright lie about the situation to the press (who then proliferate the lies), it is hard for the cops to ever be respected.
skyth wrote: The reason that we are in this mess is that the police have lost the respect of the community that they work for. This is a problem that the police need to take responsibility for and solve.
When folks (like the wife and family lawyers in this case) outright lie about the situation to the press (who then proliferate the lies), it is hard for the cops to ever be respected.
If the police had the trust and respect of the community, 'lies' wouldn't matter. There wouldn't be a flashpoint or even a Black Lived Matter movement.
The lack of trust and respect is a serious problem. It's only made worse in cases like this where the officer 'forgot' to turn on his body camera and there was an officer blocking the view of the dash camera. Plus where the police leader gets caught in an outright lie.
Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
CptJake wrote: Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.
CptJake wrote: Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.
There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.
CptJake wrote: Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.
No I think you are completing ignoring his point. I think he is smart enough to realize that when people paint a bad light of police publicly because people like you excuse their lying, then yes the trust will be lost. Percentage wise you have to look at the numbers which have been posted ad nauseum and realize that small numbers of bad cop shootings happen in regards to the large number of lawful interactions. So certain policemen should lost trust, maybe certain departments but not a blanket police issue.
Also if the guy had not been doing what he was doing, if the wife did not blatantly lie, then there would probably not be riots. To deny that may be a bit naïve.
No, it's ignoring the continuous abuse the police have heaped on the community they serve. The incidents are just flashpoints. If they hadn't happened, another incident would have sparked the riots. What actually happened in any given incident doesn't matter in the grand scope of things. The police need to work on regaining the trust and respect they have lost.
I'm amused that you harp on the 'lies' by people that don't trust the police but ignore all the lies from the police and police supporters.
redleger wrote: Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.
First, I'm not having a go at you in particular, but you seem to have articulated a position that I see fairly often in cases like these.
Is it really the contention that simply being a "Bad Guy" and not complying with police orders is justification to be killed?
That being a drug dealer (for example) and trying to run should be enough to justify a shoot?
Because that is the impression I get from statements like the one above.
In general I believe none of the things you said. In fact if you have ever heard me discuss this same subject, I am generally very aggressive with my stance on when it is ok to shoot someone and how the LEO in question could have done something different. Truth is none of it matters because its after the fact, and changes nothing. However in this case, which is what I am discussing, this situation only, he did get out, holding the weapon, refuse to put it down. Holding a weapon in a residential neighborhood, high AF and not complying with a LEO while brandishing said weapon will 100% of the time get you shot. I am ok with that, because the person was not complying with law, and was being a threat to personnel around, simply by having a loaded weapon and being under the influence. Now in this particular case, as I have said before, the police in question made every attempt not to shoot him, which is what I would expect them to do. He is the one who decided his own fate that day.
Now as the wife lied, the media lied, and facts were not waited on, the riots began. Maybe they were a boiling point, but the last degree of temperature was based off the lies stated above. So blame the police all you want, but I believe in responsibility being taken where it should be. If you want police accountability, it starts with individual accountability.
skyth wrote: How do you know he was holding the weapon? The police have already been caught in a couple lies relating to this incident already.
Your statement presupposes the cops put down a drop gun. You need to show evidence of that. The presumption is with them as:
1. Gun found on ground.
2. Cops are shouting at him to put the gun down.
3. Wife is telling him "don't do it"
4. Family attorney has not disputed this was his gun (as far as I am aware).
skyth wrote: How do you know he was holding the weapon? The police have already been caught in a couple lies relating to this incident already.
How do you know he was not? If you pause the video right, his large hands can be seen holding what would later be the weapon that fell to his side after he was shot. However even if that is not evidence enough for you, if there was not a weapon, then how did it get there. Planted you say? nope already proven that weapon was stolen then sold to Smith after the fact, so that was definitely the weapon in Smiths possession. I mean, yea, there have been some bad horrible things happen. Those responsible have to pay, but are we really going to try to crucify a cop who only did his job, didn't want to shoot the guy, and now has to deal with riots based on false pretense? Are we excusing what the wife did? If the chief lied, then he is wrong too, but they are both wrong. Fair means holding all parties accountable, not just the one you don't agree with.
Why is it so important to you that this was an unlawful shoot?
CptJake wrote: Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.
There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.
Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.
In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.
CptJake wrote: Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.
There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.
Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
redleger wrote: Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.
First, I'm not having a go at you in particular, but you seem to have articulated a position that I see fairly often in cases like these.
Is it really the contention that simply being a "Bad Guy" and not complying with police orders is justification to be killed?
That being a drug dealer (for example) and trying to run should be enough to justify a shoot?
Because that is the impression I get from statements like the one above.
In this case the 'bad thing' was not being an alleged drug dealer running from the cops. It was brandishing a weapon as the cops yell repeatedly to 'drop it' and even his wife is yelling 'Keith don't do it"
Having a gun should not be a death sentence. Yet brandishing a gun with the cops will absolutely raise the tension and put the thought of "Maybe lethal force" into the cops minds. Refusing to drop the weapon when repeatedly told to do so cements that lethal force option into the minds of the cops. And in almost every case in every jurisdiction, that will equate to a legally justified (or 'good') shoot when the investigation takes place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.
In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.
CptJake wrote: Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.
There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie. There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.
Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
Do you honestly believe if his wife and her lawyers had come out right away and stated "Keith was brandishing a gun he had threatened me in the past with" there would have been riots?
I do not. The riots occurred because of the perception the cops had capped another unarmed black man. Period.
I have not watched the videos. Seeing a man get killed isn't my idea of a good time. Can someone tell me which one to watch and when we see him brandishing his gun? I don't really want to see the rest of it.
Riots aren't a considered, rational response to presented facts and evidence.
Riots happen when an emotional mob gets out of control. Check the history of the Montreal Canadiens. Those fans have rioted when they lost, and they have rioted when they won.
Easy E wrote: I have not watched the videos. Seeing a man get killed isn't my idea of a good time. Can someone tell me which one to watch and when we see him brandishing his gun? I don't really want to see the rest of it.
I couldn't see a gun in any of the ones I have seen so far, really. I'm not saying there wasn't one, but it was shaky, low resolution footage that was completely obscured at the critical moment. It's not useful imo, other then you can see what appears to be a ankle holster, which does bolster the idea that at some point there was a gun in said holster and not a planted drop gun.
skyth wrote: Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.
In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.
CptJake wrote: Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.
There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.
Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
Objection your honor. This assumes facts not in evidence. He was not wearing a holster.
Further if he wore a holster (despite that whole illegally owning gun thing) and cops saw it they would not tell him to drop it. They would command him to keep his hands up. Potentially they would lay him on the ground but more likely one or more officers would come up (while he was still covered) disarm him and then lean him forward or lay him down. They would only command drop the gun if he had it in his hands. If he comes out of the vehicle with a pistol in his hands he'd usually have been dropped the moment they saw the pistol as he's engaging them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: I have not watched the videos. Seeing a man get killed isn't my idea of a good time. Can someone tell me which one to watch and when we see him brandishing his gun? I don't really want to see the rest of it.
I wouldn't watch any of them if I were you. I understand
your reservations.
redleger wrote: Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.
First, I'm not having a go at you in particular, but you seem to have articulated a position that I see fairly often in cases like these.
Is it really the contention that simply being a "Bad Guy" and not complying with police orders is justification to be killed?
That being a drug dealer (for example) and trying to run should be enough to justify a shoot?
Because that is the impression I get from statements like the one above.
In this case the 'bad thing' was not being an alleged drug dealer running from the cops. It was brandishing a weapon as the cops yell repeatedly to 'drop it' and even his wife is yelling 'Keith don't do it"
Having a gun should not be a death sentence. Yet brandishing a gun with the cops will absolutely raise the tension and put the thought of "Maybe lethal force" into the cops minds. Refusing to drop the weapon when repeatedly told to do so cements that lethal force option into the minds of the cops. And in almost every case in every jurisdiction, that will equate to a legally justified (or 'good') shoot when the investigation takes place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.
In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.
CptJake wrote: Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.
There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.
Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
Do you honestly believe if his wife and her lawyers had come out right away and stated "Keith was brandishing a gun he had threatened me in the past with" there would have been riots?
I do not. The riots occurred because of the perception the cops had capped another unarmed black man. Period.
Right here we have a reading comprehension fail. Yes, there would have still been riots. It's just that this incident wouldn't have been the flashpoint of the riots. It would have been another.
Of course, it doesn't help that the police here have repeatedly been caught in lies.
redleger wrote: Lets just accept this Mr. Scott was doing some bad things, got caught, refused to comply and therefore got himself killed.
First, I'm not having a go at you in particular, but you seem to have articulated a position that I see fairly often in cases like these.
Is it really the contention that simply being a "Bad Guy" and not complying with police orders is justification to be killed?
That being a drug dealer (for example) and trying to run should be enough to justify a shoot?
Because that is the impression I get from statements like the one above.
In this case the 'bad thing' was not being an alleged drug dealer running from the cops. It was brandishing a weapon as the cops yell repeatedly to 'drop it' and even his wife is yelling 'Keith don't do it"
Having a gun should not be a death sentence. Yet brandishing a gun with the cops will absolutely raise the tension and put the thought of "Maybe lethal force" into the cops minds. Refusing to drop the weapon when repeatedly told to do so cements that lethal force option into the minds of the cops. And in almost every case in every jurisdiction, that will equate to a legally justified (or 'good') shoot when the investigation takes place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Another possible solution...Gun was holstered. They yelled to put the gun down so he tries to take it out to comply and disarm and gets gunned down for that. That would explain the evidence as well.
In other words, he was in a situation where he was going to get shot no matter what he did.
CptJake wrote: Wife swearing he never had a gun after having put a restraining order on him stating he not only had a gun but had threatened her with it directly flans the flames of the mob.
So you completely ignore what I am posting to keep on your narrative. There wouldn't BE a 'mob' if the police hadn't lost the trust and respect of the community.
There wouldn't be a mob if she didn't lie.
There wouldn't be a mob if he had dropped the gun.
Exactly. The mob was created because the narrative pushed was "Cops shoot another unarmed black man". A narrative the wife and her lawyers directly contributed to. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
The situation that lead to a riot was created by the police not having the trust and respect of the community. The riot was inevitable. Not sure how that is difficult to grasp.
Do you honestly believe if his wife and her lawyers had come out right away and stated "Keith was brandishing a gun he had threatened me in the past with" there would have been riots?
I do not. The riots occurred because of the perception the cops had capped another unarmed black man. Period.
Right here we have a reading comprehension fail. Yes, there would have still been riots. It's just that this incident wouldn't have been the flashpoint of the riots. It would have been another.
Of course, it doesn't help that the police here have repeatedly been caught in lies.
So because you believe this, then lets just excuse the willful lies that did cause the riots, and cost people livlihoods and lives. No big deal, cause it would have happened anyway. Lets give her and her lawyers a pass, but crucify the police? is that my understanding of what you are saying?
Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
actually if you read above a bit, I definitely said hold whomever lied responsible, including the chief. However I am a person that believes in individual responsibility. So if the chief is wrong, then the wife is wrong. Its not one or the other, its both. The problem with the train of thought your steaming ahead at full speed it that it doesn't hold individuals accountable for their actions, just the ones you deem fit.
and profit from it in some way.
And of course the cops had actual data which they refused to release and then lied about why - any reasonable person would find that a bit shady
