Why (some among) US police behave so violently?


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 466 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
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.


MagusJanus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
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...

fair point.


MagusJanus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
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...

Mea culpa


MagusJanus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
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...

hear hear

Liberty's Edge

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.


thejeff wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

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.

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Turner wrote:

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.

You forget "Don't be black." and "Don't have a mental illness or other disability".

Beyond that, your last point completely ignores human nature. People who are upset don't calm down on command. Emotions don't turn off like a switch.

And when the officer asks for ID, remember you have to comply quickly without backtalk, but also without reaching for your waist or back into your car. Either might get you shot.

Remember as well, just because the Constitution says you don't have to show the cop ID, doesn't mean you won't get shot for not doing so. The place to insist on your rights is not on the spot, but later on after you've voluntarily ceded them.


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.

But don't worry, that's just the 1% of the time Andrew was talking about. Most of the time you'll be fine.


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.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Andrew Turner wrote:

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.
Sissyl wrote:
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).

Andrew Turner wrote:
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.
Coriat wrote:
Andrew Turner wrote:
1% of the time this isn't true.
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.

Exactly, because that's still thousands every day.

I suspect the percentage is much lower than that, but still too high to be acceptable. It's also another reason why racial harassment or Stop and Frisk programs are bad. Increasing the number of hostile police interactions increases the number of bad ones, even if the percentage stays the same.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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.


Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?

I don't think the root of the problem is "Police just hate black people", but that many officers have internalized the stereotypes of black men as "superpredators", thugs, prone to violence, overall just incredibly dangerous and likely to attack without warning.

Then a young black man who hasn't done anything wrong and isn't thinking of himself as a scary threat does something like reach for his wallet without warning and dies in hail of bullets.

Obviously there are other reasons. Some actually justified. Not "justified", but clearly and obviously right - like shooting someone who was committing a crime and is firing back.
Or others like Yuugasa's case where it may not have been racism or the same kind of overreaction, but actual police corruption. You'll notice however that it was covered up and whitewashed in the same fashion as many other shootings with no criminal corruption links. Of course, it may still have been unrelated to the payoffs. After all, on officer on the take is probably not the best in his other interactions with citizens.

So there's another reason to oppose these kinds of things - It makes it easier for the actual corrupt cops to get away with things like executions.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?

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.
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?

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.
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?

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.
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

Yuugasa wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?

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?

That police officers who are hit men can significantly undercost hit men who are not police officers and eventually get a complete monopoly?


BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?

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

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.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?

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?

That police officers who are hit men can significantly undercost hit men who are not police officers and eventually get a complete monopoly?

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.


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.
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?

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

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...

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?

Fergurg wrote:
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.
Fergurg wrote:


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.

Racism is not always as blatant as "just hate black people". I think that's where your trouble understanding lies.

No one here, and very few elsewhere, claim

Quote:
the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black man is because "police just hate black people"

I can only assume you're interpreting "police racism is to blame" as "police kill black people just because they hate them."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

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.

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"?

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

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...

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.
BigDTBone wrote:
Mea culpa

Null sheen :-)


Cranky Bastard wrote:
Fergurg wrote:


[cut out due to space]

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.

...

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.

If the offender, clearly angry and clearly hates the cop, took an action that would be reasonably seen as the cop being in danger (such as reaching into a coat after saying, "Tell Mohammad I sent you"), then yes, I would give that cop a free pass. Even though it could be innocent, it is significantly more likely that, under the circumstances, it is not.


Freehold DM wrote:
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.

You mean the same police department that was infiltrated by a crime ring?

I said that it goes against the narrative that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black person is because "police just hate black people". Sounds more likely to be a targeted hit than anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:

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.


MagusJanus wrote:
Fergurg wrote:

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?

It supports my position because it shows that there may have been another motive - profit.

MagusJanus wrote:
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.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
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.

You mean the same police department that was infiltrated by a crime ring?

I said that it goes against the narrative that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black person is because "police just hate black people". Sounds more likely to be a targeted hit than anything else.

This is a narrative that only exists in your head. (Well, an in the heads of some other police apologists.)

Others will argue for more or less racism on the part of law enforcement, but no one here and only a tiny fringe anywhere will argue that's the only possible reason for a black man to be shot by police.

From the original story, we don't know how deeply the police department was infiltrated. If it was less than near-total, including the prosecutors, then it's still likely that racism played a role in making it easier to cover up.


Fergurg wrote:
(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.
Fergug wrote:
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.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not trying to disrupt too much here, because it seems people are resolving/debating the topics here fairly OK without our involvement. But, I've removed a couple baiting posts that are getting too abrasive/breaking some of our guidelines. If a post is making you see red or get frustrated, please take a moment away from the keyboard before responding. I'd also like to note that very broad statements about this issue can be a problem, let's try to keep this one centered around the topic from the original post please.


Fergurg wrote:
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.
Fergurg wrote:
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.


Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
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.


thejeff wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
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.

You mean the same police department that was infiltrated by a crime ring?

I said that it goes against the narrative that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black person is because "police just hate black people". Sounds more likely to be a targeted hit than anything else.

This is a narrative that only exists in your head. (Well, an in the heads of some other police apologists.)

Others will argue for more or less racism on the part of law enforcement, but no one here and only a tiny fringe anywhere will argue that's the only possible reason for a black man to be shot by police.

From the original story, we don't know how deeply the police department was infiltrated. If it was less than near-total, including the prosecutors, then it's still likely that racism played a role in making it easier to cover up.

Part of the difficulty is that we don't know the whole story, or even most of it. Here's what we know:

1) The cop killed an unarmed black man while he was, according to witnesses, reaching for his wallet.

2) The police ruled that the shooting was justified.

3) Years later, it is discovered that there was a crime ring that infiltrated the police department. How far, and how many were infiltrated is not told to us, but we know that this cop was one of the corrupt cops in the crime ring.

And .... that's it. To come to an informed conclusion, or even an educated guess, we would need more information. I personally want to know more about the guy that was shot. Literally all we know is that he was black and he was unarmed. Did he have enemies? Did he have any dealings with the mob? For that matter, was he doing something that was negatively affecting the mob? He could have been a business man who wasn't paying protection money, a counselor who was getting girls out of prostitution, or an accountant for a rival mob.

Did he and the cop know each other? Was this a personal vendetta completely unrelated to a mob hit? What words were spoken between the two? Because "Here's my ID" and "This ends now!" change the entire context of reaching into a pocket.

Or perhaps the most important fact is that the shooting took place in public, with witnesses around. Was it to send a message that this crime ring was untouchable? Or it could have been sending a message that the police were untouchable.

Or maybe that cop, his supervisor, the other cops, the district attorney's office, and Internal Affairs are all racist and saw a dead black man as a job well done.

But we don't have enough information to make an educated guess. And the fact that, to some people, the only guess to be made is "It's racism. Even if there's another reason, it's still racism." ... yes, I would say that mentality is "police just hate black people".


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Good Stuff

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Not trying to disrupt too much here, because it seems people are resolving/debating the topics here fairly OK without our involvement. But, I've removed a couple baiting posts that are getting too abrasive/breaking some of our guidelines. If a post is making you see red or get frustrated, please take a moment away from the keyboard before responding. I'd also like to note that very broad statements about this issue can be a problem, let's try to keep this one centered around the topic from the original post please.

So here is my confusion: one person literally says that I am either lying or brain damaged for my views, and I call him on it. Why is my calling him on it too abrasive, but his is not?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
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.

You mean the same police department that was infiltrated by a crime ring?

I said that it goes against the narrative that the ONLY reason a cop would shoot a black person is because "police just hate black people". Sounds more likely to be a targeted hit than anything else.

This is a narrative that only exists in your head. (Well, an in the heads of some other police apologists.)

Others will argue for more or less racism on the part of law enforcement, but no one here and only a tiny fringe anywhere will argue that's the only possible reason for a black man to be shot by police.

From the original story, we don't know how deeply the police department was infiltrated. If it was less than near-total, including the prosecutors, then it's still likely that racism played a role in making it easier to cover up.

Part of the difficulty is that we don't know the whole story, or even most of it. Here's what we know:

1) The cop killed an unarmed black man while he was, according to witnesses, reaching for his wallet.

2) The police ruled that the shooting was justified.

3) Years later, it is discovered that there was a crime ring that infiltrated the police department. How far, and how many were infiltrated is not told to us, but we know that this cop was one of the corrupt cops in the crime ring.

And .... that's it. To come to an informed conclusion, or even an educated guess, we would need more information. I personally want to know more about the guy that was shot. Literally all we know is that he was black and he was unarmed. Did he have enemies? Did he have any dealings with the mob? For that matter, was he doing something that was negatively affecting the mob? He could have been a business man who wasn't paying protection money, a...

Whereas you seem to be grabbing this case as a desperate attempt to show that it isn't always racism.

Which we all agree it isn't. But it's subtler than that, and even more subtler than "police just hate black people".
The response here was generally: You're right, it's not just that cops hate black people. There are other reasons they shoot black people. This could well be one of them. Even if it was, the pervasive racism would make the officer's story of being threatened easier to believe and thus make it easier for him to get away with it. Note that the "pervasive racism" is generally not "hates black people", but closer to Fergie's list - assuming blacks are more likely to be violent, more likely to be armed, more likely to be criminal, more likely to be a threat in general.

But step back from this to the more general argument: I'm perfectly willing to concede that not all police killings of black men are because the police hate black people. In fact I said that in my first post on this topic. Will you agree that a problematic number are motivated by racism? Probably in a subtler form than "just hates black people".


Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
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...

301 to 350 of 466 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Why (some among) US police behave so violently? All Messageboards