| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason cops have authority is because they carry bigger guns and people are afraid of them. And its interesting to see a cop apologist whine about people thinkig "aint nobody gonna tell me what to do", as that is the very basis of authoritarian cop-supporting capitalism.I have this vague sense you're trying to insult me, but your last sentence didn't really make sense.I'll see if I can help translate. Cop apologists often blame people who get shot for being shot. Cop apologists also say that self-important jerks deserve what they get.
It seems a natural conclusion to many of us that cops are the definition of self important jerks and that they would rather murder someone than relent absolute dominance. Even when the situation is no where near that level of intensity. So what actually happens is that two-self important jerks collide and the one with the bigger gun (read: only gun) wins. 99% of the time this is the cop and cop apologists will say that the victim deserved it. In the 1% of the time that it isn't the cop with the bigger gun and the cop loses, then cop apologists are up in arms, other cops will beat the suspect, DA's won't throw GJ hearings to let them off (but quite the opposite) and generally get crapped on by the system even in cases where the cop was later found to have been causing harm, acting outside their pervue, threatening innocents, or all of the above.
Many of us find that this level of dissonance could only be the result of (1) academic dishonesty, or (2) brain damage. So rather than say you have brain damage, we instead say that you are being dishonest. If you insist that you aren't being dishonest then I will accept that and presume the second possibility is true. Your words will hold equal weight with me in either case.
Some of us who post on here actually do have brain damage. I'm one of them. And I'm more than a little offended at the insinuation that having brain damage is considered an explanation for supporting cops who terrorize people.
Some of us who post on here actually do have brain damage. I'm one of them. And I'm more than a little offended at the insinuation that having...The only reason cops have authority is because they carry bigger guns and people are afraid of them. And its interesting to see a cop apologist whine about people thinkig "aint nobody gonna tell me what to do", as that is the very basis of authoritarian cop-supporting capitalism.I have this vague sense you're trying to insult me, but your last sentence didn't really make sense.I'll see if I can help translate. Cop apologists often blame people who get shot for being shot. Cop apologists also say that self-important jerks deserve what they get.
It seems a natural conclusion to many of us that cops are the definition of self important jerks and that they would rather murder someone than relent absolute dominance. Even when the situation is no where near that level of intensity. So what actually happens is that two-self important jerks collide and the one with the bigger gun (read: only gun) wins. 99% of the time this is the cop and cop apologists will say that the victim deserved it. In the 1% of the time that it isn't the cop with the bigger gun and the cop loses, then cop apologists are up in arms, other cops will beat the suspect, DA's won't throw GJ hearings to let them off (but quite the opposite) and generally get crapped on by the system even in cases where the cop was later found to have been causing harm, acting outside their pervue, threatening innocents, or all of the above.
Many of us find that this level of dissonance could only be the result of (1) academic dishonesty, or (2) brain damage. So rather than say you have brain damage, we instead say that you are being dishonest. If you insist that you aren't being dishonest then I will accept that and presume the second possibility is true. Your words will hold equal weight with me in either case.
fair point.
Some of us who post on here actually do have brain damage. I'm one of them. And I'm more than a little offended at the insinuation that having...The only reason cops have authority is because they carry bigger guns and people are afraid of them. And its interesting to see a cop apologist whine about people thinkig "aint nobody gonna tell me what to do", as that is the very basis of authoritarian cop-supporting capitalism.I have this vague sense you're trying to insult me, but your last sentence didn't really make sense.I'll see if I can help translate. Cop apologists often blame people who get shot for being shot. Cop apologists also say that self-important jerks deserve what they get.
It seems a natural conclusion to many of us that cops are the definition of self important jerks and that they would rather murder someone than relent absolute dominance. Even when the situation is no where near that level of intensity. So what actually happens is that two-self important jerks collide and the one with the bigger gun (read: only gun) wins. 99% of the time this is the cop and cop apologists will say that the victim deserved it. In the 1% of the time that it isn't the cop with the bigger gun and the cop loses, then cop apologists are up in arms, other cops will beat the suspect, DA's won't throw GJ hearings to let them off (but quite the opposite) and generally get crapped on by the system even in cases where the cop was later found to have been causing harm, acting outside their pervue, threatening innocents, or all of the above.
Many of us find that this level of dissonance could only be the result of (1) academic dishonesty, or (2) brain damage. So rather than say you have brain damage, we instead say that you are being dishonest. If you insist that you aren't being dishonest then I will accept that and presume the second possibility is true. Your words will hold equal weight with me in either case.
Mea culpa
Some of us who post on here actually do have brain damage. I'm one of them. And I'm more than a little offended at the insinuation that having...The only reason cops have authority is because they carry bigger guns and people are afraid of them. And its interesting to see a cop apologist whine about people thinkig "aint nobody gonna tell me what to do", as that is the very basis of authoritarian cop-supporting capitalism.I have this vague sense you're trying to insult me, but your last sentence didn't really make sense.I'll see if I can help translate. Cop apologists often blame people who get shot for being shot. Cop apologists also say that self-important jerks deserve what they get.
It seems a natural conclusion to many of us that cops are the definition of self important jerks and that they would rather murder someone than relent absolute dominance. Even when the situation is no where near that level of intensity. So what actually happens is that two-self important jerks collide and the one with the bigger gun (read: only gun) wins. 99% of the time this is the cop and cop apologists will say that the victim deserved it. In the 1% of the time that it isn't the cop with the bigger gun and the cop loses, then cop apologists are up in arms, other cops will beat the suspect, DA's won't throw GJ hearings to let them off (but quite the opposite) and generally get crapped on by the system even in cases where the cop was later found to have been causing harm, acting outside their pervue, threatening innocents, or all of the above.
Many of us find that this level of dissonance could only be the result of (1) academic dishonesty, or (2) brain damage. So rather than say you have brain damage, we instead say that you are being dishonest. If you insist that you aren't being dishonest then I will accept that and presume the second possibility is true. Your words will hold equal weight with me in either case.
hear hear
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience with police forces in the US follows.
My opinion:
When you're polite to an officer, they're polite to you. 1% of the time this isn't true.
When you're belligerent with an officer, they're belligerent with you. 99% of the time this is true.
What some Americans (and internationals) are calling fear of the police, I call respect for authority (which I have).
Simple rules, from my point of view:
If an officer engages you, be polite and respectful.
If an officer issues a directive, follow it.
When an officer says, "Hands up!" don't start walking toward them! Put you hands up and be quiet.
When an officer asks for ID, don't invoke the Constitution or Patrick Henry, just show them your ID.
When you've broken the law, no matter how trivial or what circumstances you believe mitigate your offense, be contrite and respectful--that doesn't mean you have to admit you did or didn't do anything, but don't be deliberately stupid.
When an officer tells you to calm down, or stop cursing at them, calm down and shut up: the officer's demand was explicit and black-and-white; there is absolutely zero chance that they actually meant for you to teach them all the profanities you know, and in as loud a voice as possible.
Thing is, this argument is never used when a cop is shot. Then it's all "oh they were a hero dying to that criminal scum". Despite that they cause grief all the time.The idea that people deserve to die just because they are jerks is completely outrageous.No it really isn't. Everyone is going to die over something -- the fact you (generic sense, not you specifically Big) constantly cause grief and it finally catches up to them isn't tragic. It's a better reason to die than simply being in the wrong place and someone not liking the way you look (Zimmerman I am looking at you).
You piss off enough people and eventually it's going to come back and bite you. People forget that humans are social creatures, if you don't play in the society eventually the herd (or pack) will cull you or something else will.
It also ties in nicely to the "It's the black people's fault" theme. If it's not because they're criminals, it's because they must just be jerks to cops more often.
Agreed -- I was only talking to the initial point of jerks and what they get. There has been many a jerk die in the line of duty and thereby had their questionable qualities overlooked when they really shouldn't have been.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I was a kid there was an incident where a police officer stopped a black man in my area and asked him for I.D.
The man complied without complaint, but as the man pulled his wallet out of his pocket and opened it to get his I.D. the officer drew his gun and emptied an entire clip into the man at almost point blank range. When the man was on the ground, likely already dead, the cop calmly reloaded and emptied an entire additional clip into the man's unmoving body.
This was on a public street and there were many witnesses who saw the whole thing. The cop claimed he thought some weapon might have been in the wallet so he defended himself. The man was in fact unarmed and turned out to have no criminal record. Less than a week later the shoot was declared justified.
The adults in my area were extremely disturbed and frightened by this but nothing could be done about it. The incident actually spawned a game at my school were we would yell; "Look out, he has I.D.!" before surprise punching each other in the chest.
Now, to be fair many years later a criminal network was taken apart and it was discovered that that same cop(among others) was on their payroll, leading to speculation that maybe that incident had been some kind of hit, but as far as I know nothing ever came of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One pretty situation in Sweden a few years ago was when a man suffering from epilepsy had had a seizure on the street but was not noticed. When he came to again, he was postictal, i.e. surly, not thinking clearly, and his body was stiff and jumpy. He met a whole squad of policemen who took him for a druggie and beat the s*+& out of him. Luckily he survived.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My experience with police forces in the US follows.
My opinion:
When you're polite to an officer, they're polite to you. 1% of the time this isn't true.
When you're belligerent with an officer, they're belligerent with you. 99% of the time this is true.
What some Americans (and internationals) are calling fear of the police, I call respect for authority (which I have).
Simple rules, from my point of view:
If an officer engages you, be polite and respectful.
If an officer issues a directive, follow it.
When an officer says, "Hands up!" don't start walking toward them! Put you hands up and be quiet.
When an officer asks for ID, don't invoke the Constitution or Patrick Henry, just show them your ID.
When you've broken the law, no matter how trivial or what circumstances you believe mitigate your offense, be contrite and respectful--that doesn't mean you have to admit you did or didn't do anything, but don't be deliberately stupid.
When an officer tells you to calm down, or stop cursing at them, calm down and shut up: the officer's demand was explicit and black-and-white; there is absolutely zero chance that they actually meant for you to teach them all the profanities you know, and in as loud a voice as possible.
Oh Sure, my experience with cops has always been super polite and above board. But then, I'm middle-class white in an area that's majority white, with an entirely white police force. That doesn't mean that my very limited interactions with the police are somehow universal. So when black people say they have a completely different relationship with police, the very least I can do is listen.
Police are not always polite, they are not always reasonable. They also do not always have the legal authority to issue demands to you, that you are completely within your legal right to ignore or disobey. You just might get beat or shot for it, and then they will be able to say how frightened they were and be totally justified, and everyone else will say how you should have been more polite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One pretty situation in Sweden a few years ago was when a man suffering from epilepsy had had a seizure on the street but was not noticed. When he came to again, he was postictal, i.e. surly, not thinking clearly, and his body was stiff and jumpy. He met a whole squad of policemen who took him for a druggie and beat the s$*+ out of him. Luckily he survived.
I always do wonder a little how the "only a tiny fraction of policemen might be problematic" thing coexists with the "entire squads misbehaving" thing, (or the "partners declare shooting justified after perfunctory investigation" thing).
1% of the time this isn't true.
I think the percentage actually varies sharply based on your location, situation, and the department you are dealing with. I don't really think bad policing is randomly distributed, and I tend to think that individual bad policemen within a department are only randomly distributed when the overall situation is very good and rigorous from top to bototm. Otherwise, bad policing comes in patterns.
That said, it is also frankly a severe problem if 1% of police interactions involve arbitrary police misconduct against a well-behaving citizen - more so if the legal system can't be relied on to address many of these cases after the fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?When I was a kid there was an incident where a police officer stopped a black man in my area and asked him for I.D.
The man complied without complaint, but as the man pulled his wallet out of his pocket and opened it to get his I.D. the officer drew his gun and emptied an entire clip into the man at almost point blank range. When the man was on the ground, likely already dead, the cop calmly reloaded and emptied an entire additional clip into the man's unmoving body.
This was on a public street and there were many witnesses who saw the whole thing. The cop claimed he thought some weapon might have been in the wallet so he defended himself. The man was in fact unarmed and turned out to have no criminal record. Less than a week later the shoot was declared justified.
The adults in my area were extremely disturbed and frightened by this but nothing could be done about it. The incident actually spawned a game at my school were we would yell; "Look out, he has I.D.!" before surprise punching each other in the chest.
Now, to be fair many years later a criminal network was taken apart and it was discovered that that same cop(among others) was on their payroll, leading to speculation that maybe that incident had been some kind of hit, but as far as I know nothing ever came of that.
If that's all you got from this, then I'm not sure what to say to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?When I was a kid there was an incident where a police officer stopped a black man in my area and asked him for I.D.
The man complied without complaint, but as the man pulled his wallet out of his pocket and opened it to get his I.D. the officer drew his gun and emptied an entire clip into the man at almost point blank range. When the man was on the ground, likely already dead, the cop calmly reloaded and emptied an entire additional clip into the man's unmoving body.
This was on a public street and there were many witnesses who saw the whole thing. The cop claimed he thought some weapon might have been in the wallet so he defended himself. The man was in fact unarmed and turned out to have no criminal record. Less than a week later the shoot was declared justified.
The adults in my area were extremely disturbed and frightened by this but nothing could be done about it. The incident actually spawned a game at my school were we would yell; "Look out, he has I.D.!" before surprise punching each other in the chest.
Now, to be fair many years later a criminal network was taken apart and it was discovered that that same cop(among others) was on their payroll, leading to speculation that maybe that incident had been some kind of hit, but as far as I know nothing ever came of that.
If you read that post and considered the content in support of your position then perhaps you should take a long and honest moment to reevaluate your position.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jesus frakking Christ.
~Ninja'd
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?When I was a kid there was an incident where a police officer stopped a black man in my area and asked him for I.D.
The man complied without complaint, but as the man pulled his wallet out of his pocket and opened it to get his I.D. the officer drew his gun and emptied an entire clip into the man at almost point blank range. When the man was on the ground, likely already dead, the cop calmly reloaded and emptied an entire additional clip into the man's unmoving body.
This was on a public street and there were many witnesses who saw the whole thing. The cop claimed he thought some weapon might have been in the wallet so he defended himself. The man was in fact unarmed and turned out to have no criminal record. Less than a week later the shoot was declared justified.
The adults in my area were extremely disturbed and frightened by this but nothing could be done about it. The incident actually spawned a game at my school were we would yell; "Look out, he has I.D.!" before surprise punching each other in the chest.
Now, to be fair many years later a criminal network was taken apart and it was discovered that that same cop(among others) was on their payroll, leading to speculation that maybe that incident had been some kind of hit, but as far as I know nothing ever came of that.
Of course, but if it was an assassination that is in many ways an even more terrifying scenario. It means a hit man killed his target in broad daylight in front of witnesses with full confidence he would get away with it because he was a cop.
What does that say about the society we live in?
Edit: and when I say "of course" I am not agreeing that "Police just hate black people", I am just assuming you are reducing several highly complex issues into a simplistic and inaccurate phrase and responding to the general idea behind it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But don't worry, that's just the 1% of the time Andrew was talking about. Most of the time you'll be fine.While there is a certain truth to your sarcasm, there's just as much to Andrews comment that the vast majority of people's interactions with the police don't end in violence of any sort, let alone fatalities.
Far too many do though.
The problem with Andrew's comment, without the sarcasm, is that it shifts the blame to the victim. Sets up the default as "police abuse is mostly due to the behavior of the abused". Which strikes me as much like what abusers and there defenders always claim.
It's fairly common for bullies to pick those who can be provoked to respond and then use that response to justify their bullying. With police never needing to deescalate and in fact being trained to escalate to take control, it's very easy to mask such behavior. Only looking at whether a shooting was justified in the last moment when the officer felt threatened ignores the build up and all the ways the officer could have kept it from getting to that point.
It also completely ignores both racial and class disparities. Not only is the 1% more likely in some departments, but it's also more likely to happen to some groups of citizens.
No disagreement, but the I'm also beginning to think replies like yours aren't helping since hyperbole and sarcasm tend to work against you when trying to convince the uninformed that there is a problem. Also, see the earlier comment from someone who cancelled vacation plans to the US because they and their wife were terrified that they'd be shot at random by the police.
There are massive problems with police use of force and disparate policing (and prosecution) based on race and class, but I think anything suggesting that the entirety, or even a majority, of every police force in the country are murderous jack booted thugs isn't helping the discourse.
When someone's truthful statement gets read as hyperbole you know the problem is out of control. This particular problem being the general population's willingness to ignore the truth that black lives in this country are less valuable than white lives.
Because it is relevant to the discussion and not being deployed as an angry rebuttal, I am going to make a reiterating of some that was disappeared previously as part of a compare and contrast.
This is a tale of two Wal-Mart experiences involving police interactions.
One ended in death - the other did not.
What's more offensive is that in the non-fatality situation, the officer was punished - not so much in the other case.
Freehold had noted, and I agreed, that excessive force was used, though I readily admit that the situation looked more than a little 'heat of the moment'. However, the actual honest-to-goodness offender got to live, and he clearly did not have wealth, power, or influence on his side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My position is simply that there are people tend to genuinely believe that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black man is because "police just hate black people"; here's a scenario which, if true, is a different explanation: organized crime putting out a hit. But that possibility goes...You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?When I was a kid there was an incident where a police officer stopped a black man in my area and asked him for I.D.
The man complied without complaint, but as the man pulled his wallet out of his pocket and opened it to get his I.D. the officer drew his gun and emptied an entire clip into the man at almost point blank range. When the man was on the ground, likely already dead, the cop calmly reloaded and emptied an entire additional clip into the man's unmoving body.
This was on a public street and there were many witnesses who saw the whole thing. The cop claimed he thought some weapon might have been in the wallet so he defended himself. The man was in fact unarmed and turned out to have no criminal record. Less than a week later the shoot was declared justified.
The adults in my area were extremely disturbed and frightened by this but nothing could be done about it. The incident actually spawned a game at my school were we would yell; "Look out, he has I.D.!" before surprise punching each other in the chest.
Now, to be fair many years later a criminal network was taken apart and it was discovered that that same cop(among others) was on their payroll, leading to speculation that maybe that incident had been some kind of hit, but as far as I know nothing ever came of that.
If you read that post and considered the content in support of your position then perhaps you should take a long and honest moment to reevaluate your position.
<removed, because using His name as profanity pisses me off!>
~Ninja'd
Going to regret this question but I already played 'nice' once.
So would your reaction be different if the cop was a Muslim who shot a Christian? Say, a self-proclaimed Christian having a failing of faith, in the commission of a crime, and while he's at it insults the officer and his faith? From what was said earlier, failure to show due deference to authority can be grounds for mistreatment. If the offender hides behind his faith while, say, calling the officer a filthy terrorist, a rag head with a badge, a sand-expletive camel-jockey, would you be just as cavalier about the cop using lethal force on the offender...and getting away with it?
Because if not, then you really should reconsider the way you give cops a free pass because of the victims bringing it on themselves.
EDIT: also, this?
Just another example of why government should stay out of the business sector: private business cannot compete with the government because the government, as the rulers, can simply use its advantages as rulers to squash the competitors.
This Poeslaw is too mealy for my tastes. :|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My position is simply that there are people tend to genuinely believe that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black man is because "police just hate black people"; here's a scenario which, if true, is a different explanation: organized crime putting out a hit. But that possibility goes...You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?When I was a kid there was an incident where a police officer stopped a black man in my area and asked him for I.D.
The man complied without complaint, but as the man pulled his wallet out of his pocket and opened it to get his I.D. the officer drew his gun and emptied an entire clip into the man at almost point blank range. When the man was on the ground, likely already dead, the cop calmly reloaded and emptied an entire additional clip into the man's unmoving body.
This was on a public street and there were many witnesses who saw the whole thing. The cop claimed he thought some weapon might have been in the wallet so he defended himself. The man was in fact unarmed and turned out to have no criminal record. Less than a week later the shoot was declared justified.
The adults in my area were extremely disturbed and frightened by this but nothing could be done about it. The incident actually spawned a game at my school were we would yell; "Look out, he has I.D.!" before surprise punching each other in the chest.
Now, to be fair many years later a criminal network was taken apart and it was discovered that that same cop(among others) was on their payroll, leading to speculation that maybe that incident had been some kind of hit, but as far as I know nothing ever came of that.
If you read that post and considered the content in support of your position then perhaps you should take a long and honest moment to reevaluate your position.
<removed, because using His name as profanity pisses me off!>
~Ninja'd
considering that the shooting was originally found to be justified by the police department, I would say that DOES NOT go against the narrative that police hate black people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mea culpa
Null sheen :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My position is simply that there are people tend to genuinely believe that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black man is because "police just hate black people"; here's a scenario which, if true, is a different explanation: organized crime putting out a hit. But that possibility goes against the narrative of "Police just hate black people", which is why the people with that belief cannot accept any other possibility.
People will believe or disbelieve whatever they need to in order to justify their love and their hate. It's human nature.
So that post merely provided anecdotal support for my position. Your response, however, DOES confirm my position.
How does a scenario in which a cop shot an African American guy to death for no good reason and the police made efforts to cover it up support your position?
Just because it might be a hit does not mean there is no racism involved; sometimes, assassinations are done because the other guy is a different race.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It supports my position because it shows that there may have been another motive - profit.
Profit is why modern racism started in the first place. Considering that as a different motive is ignoring the entire history of racial relations in North America from the point Columbus got lost on his way to Asia.
I didn't say the two were mutually exclusive. What I said was that this shooting shows that it possible for a black person to be killed by a cop for a reason unrelated to racism. The fact that you seem so eager to say this must be because the cop was racist, even if it was a targeted mob hit (because we all know that if the victim was white, the cop wouldn't have taken the contract; white solidarity overcomes greed, even in organized crime) proves my OTHER point that whenever there is a shooting, many have the view that the ONLY possible reason is because police just hate black people.
You might have a point... if that cop went on to shoot people of varied races pulling similar stunts. He didn't.
You are stretching to make the example fit your narrative when you have absolutely no evidence that it does. The evidence it doesn't is the actions of the cop, the races of the cop and suspect, and the lack of evidence the cop took out such actions against other races. If you want to make it fit, you need evidence that it does.
(because we all know that if the victim was white, the cop wouldn't have taken the contract; white solidarity overcomes greed, even in organized crime)
less white solidarity than one ethnicity over another. The history of such things is utterly fascinating, at least to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it possible for a black person to be killed by a cop for a reason unrelated to racism
So you need to contrive/point out one really bizarre situation in order to refute an argument that no one is making...
When you're fighting a scarecrow and losing its time to reconsider your position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
whenever there is a shooting, many have the view that the ONLY possible reason is because police just hate black people.
I'm not sure one could reasonably arrive at this conclusion from reading this thread. Perhaps you have been hanging out elsewhere on the internets, as one does from time to time, and confusing which conversation is which?
I mean, I could imagine that perspective arising in, say, a Youtube comments section, but it certainly doesn't seem to rule this thread.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?
.
.The police could think a black person is more likely to become violent.
The police could think a black person is better able to resist or withstand force.
The police could think a black person is more likely to be committing a crime.
The police could think a black person is less able to respond to verbal commands.
The police could think a black person is better at fighting or using a weapon.
The police could think a black person is more likely to be armed.
The police could think a black person is less likely to respond to a summons.
The police could think a black person is less likely to win a court settlement against them.
The police could think a black person is less likely to be missed by the community.
None of these are as simple as "just hate black people", but they are all things that make it more dangerous for black people dealing with police. White people don't have to even consider any of this when dealing with police.
EDIT: I should note that it is not just the police who may think these things. Sadly, these thoughts can come from all aspects of society, including black cops and other black people.
You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?The police could think a black person is more likely to become violent.
The police could think a black person is better able to resist or withstand force.
The police could think a black person is more likely to be committing a crime.
The police could think a black person is less able to respond to verbal commands.
The police could think a black person is better at fighting or using a weapon.
The police could think a black person is more likely to be armed.
The police could think a black person is less likely to respond to a summons.
The police could think a black person is less likely to win a court settlement against them.
The police could think a black person is less likely to be missed by the community.None of these are as simple as "just hate black people", but they are all things that make it more dangerous for black people dealing with police. White people don't have to even consider any of this when dealing with police.
Well said.
Sorry about the Kool Aid Man thing. One of my first jobs as a graphic designer was working on some Kool Aid stuff (~1994 god I'm old), and I have always had a special place in my heart for that massive sugary monster. The idea of that version of the Kool Aid man was very funny to me, but I did not consider how it might be viewed in the context of the thread. Sorry about that.
You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?.
.The police could think a black person is better able to resist or withstand force.
The police could think a black person is better at fighting or using a weapon.
If you're larger than the police officer in question those tend to come up a bit. Gods help you if you're both though...