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?
Hey Fergurg, I've gone ahead and sent you an email regarding this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally want to know [...]
[extensive list of things Fergurg wants to know about the shooting]
It's lucky we have impartial, transparent investigations when police shoot people instead of secretive internal investigations by the shooter's coworkers. Otherwise we might not know any of those things!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.
OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean that even after a shooting is proven justified, there are still people calling it racist murder. (Doesn't matter the shooting - any shooting.)
How exactly is it proven justified?
Non-antagonistic request for clarification - is there a maximum degree of topical separation? For example, violence is the subject, is disparity by ethnicity fine? What about by socioeconomic divide? Religious commonalities?
This is genuine non-snark to avoid going off topic in an already volatile off topic discussion and avoid setting off alarms while keeping to the topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. It's more or less that broad statements or detailed discussions about related subjects can result in long detailed discussion that may or may not be an appropriate fit in this thread. It's more or less a request from us to create new threads if you want to discuss something more specific. But again, this is Off-Topic, so things a bit faster and looser out here. It just helps us moderate more heated issues if posts are generally about the same thing in threads like this one.
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.
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.
...internally consistent, I will grant that.
However, the additional details are something that has been frequently subject to abuse - too often you will find instances of "he was reaching for my weapon" that are demonstrably falsehoods, in much the same way that 'stop resisting' is used to justify excessive use of force. Part of what was being illustrated by the example was an example derived from real happenstance of how different backgrounds could impact the interaction - additionally I am fairly certain that in the above-mentioned example, the officer would be more likely to be reprimanded, with minimal support from the police union, though I would be glad to be wrong about that.
Essentially, with a lack of obligation to de-escalate, many cops have provoked conflict to a threshold where they could thereafter justify increased use of force, and while not seated in active bigotry, institutionalized prejudices serve to exacerbate the inclination towards more extreme rebuke and reaction based on the examples Fergie put forth.
I have no cause to question sincerity, and as noted your answer is internally consistent; I only wonder if the framing of the premise precludes any means of conveying the deep, vehement disagreement and cause for same.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That police officers who are hit men can significantly undercost hit men who are not police officers and eventually get a complete monopoly?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?
Actually, they'd be able to charge a premium by being an official, legal shield keeping the person that hired them completely above suspicion, since the cop was obviously defending himself against a deranged criminal. Regular hit men can't provide that service, and the type of people that can afford to have someone hit would gladly pay more for a much safer opportunity to remove someone in their way.
| 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.
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.
He also forgot:
"Don't carry large amounts of cash for legitimate purposes"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's ANY purposes Iron. Asset seizure laws are pretty close to the top of the list for things that have gone horribly wrong in this country.
The moment they allowed any civil law in the criminal law arena, and started allowing preponderance of the evidence, which, before the late '80s to now iteration of the War on Drugs, was strictly prohibited for criminal proceedings by the USSC, things got ugly. "Preponderance of the evidence" is a crock the way the U.S. and state courts implement it. And it is amazing, looking at old case law and USSC decisions, how much appointees by both parties always seem to, when it matters, side with the government's right to change the rules at will over the public's right to have the rules mean what precedent says they do.
Any time I (ok, with my past maybe not I, but "you") can withdraw $20k from an account to purchase a vehicle, have a receipt for the cash from the bank, have adequate financial means and reasonable lifestyle within those means to have easily saved that much cash, and, if a cop pulls me over and takes it, claiming no one but a drug dealer would have that much cash and I have to hire a lawyer to file a zillion motions and whatnot for the small possibility I MIGHT get it back, the system is so out of whack that people are stupid for putting up with it for so long.
The "war on drugs" did way more to erode our civil liberties than anything after 9/11, people just didn't notice it as much because "drugs are bad, m'kay?".
Just a minor correction here: the Supreme Court has ruled that yes, you are required to show ID when asked by a cop. That is because the right to remain silent only applies to questions that, by answering them, you may incriminate yourself (like "Why are you here?"), and your identity is considered to never be incriminating.
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.
Except you are not required by law to carry ID, so not giving it to a cop is not illegal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."
I'm still not sure that the conversation actually had arrived at any such agreement prior to your arrival to argue against it. I'm actually not entirely sure whether such an opinion was advanced in this thread at all, although I suppose some overlooked post might have included it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.
It is an insult to the evidence you've been presented and the people you're talking to to simply dismiss the argument as an assumption without either addressing it or apparently understanding it.
It isn't as simple as black being the one and only factor. Its a matter of it being a contributing factor: far, far too much of a contributing factor.
Take the case in New York with Eric Garner. Looked like a combination of incompetence and tempers flaring up due to the fact that the cop and the suspect had a history, and not a pleasant one. But unless somehow the black supervisor on the scene was somehow a race traitor, the death was not because he was black.
His level of incompetence and anger management issues is only acceptable when its taken out on black people. Oddly enough if your level of incompetence and anger rise to the level where you use an illegal chokehold on someone in a predominantly white area your incompetent keister will be fired if you're lucky and sent off to jail with the rest of the criminals if you're not. Oddly enough that practice has the effect of producing far fewer officers that are that angry/inompetent/whatever.
People are tired of putting up with these kinds of cops and a system that does nothing to prevent them from doing it again when its clear from other districts that different kinds of police are possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.
Take the case in New York with Eric Garner. Looked like a combination of incompetence and tempers flaring up due to the fact that the cop and the suspect had a history, and not a pleasant one. But unless somehow the black supervisor on the scene was somehow a race traitor, the death was not because he was black.
BTW: You want a conspiracy theory? I got one, and I don't think it's too far-fetched: Garner's legal issues, and the reason he knew that particular cop, were related to not paying cigarette taxes. The mayor of NYC loves himself some taxes. The people who elected him, the same people who would be part of the grand jury pool, elected a man who campaigned on raising taxes.
Is it just me, or does this sound like a "Business man didn't pay the money we wanted him to pay. Sure was a tragic 'accident' what happened to him. If only he had paid, that could have been avoided."
I hate to pull this particular card, but as a mostly life long new yorker, you're in the wrong here. Staten Island has had issues with heavy handed enforcement with respect to minor crime from police FOR YEARS, and while I do think race plays a role here, it pales in comparison to how that particular neighborhood is patroled. Note that they got the guy selling loosies in front of a store in daylight hours. They never ever catch the guys selling crack in the park down the street(don't ask me for the name, I live in Brooklyn). Why? Because those guys are dangerous, and they knew garner was not.
I hate to pull this particular card, but as a mostly life long new yorker, you're in the wrong here. Staten Island has had issues with heavy handed enforcement with respect to minor crime from police FOR YEARS, and while I do think race plays a role here, it pales in comparison to how that particular neighborhood is patroled. Note that they got the guy selling loosies in front of a store in...I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.
Take the case in New York with Eric Garner. Looked like a combination of incompetence and tempers flaring up due to the fact that the cop and the suspect had a history, and not a pleasant one. But unless somehow the black supervisor on the scene was somehow a race traitor, the death was not because he was black.
BTW: You want a conspiracy theory? I got one, and I don't think it's too far-fetched: Garner's legal issues, and the reason he knew that particular cop, were related to not paying cigarette taxes. The mayor of NYC loves himself some taxes. The people who elected him, the same people who would be part of the grand jury pool, elected a man who campaigned on raising taxes.
Is it just me, or does this sound like a "Business man didn't pay the money we wanted him to pay. Sure was a tragic 'accident' what happened to him. If only he had paid, that could have been avoided."
What I will never understand about this case is why they decided they had to arrest him for a ticketable offense. 4 guys are there to take in someone that the first cop could have just written a $100 ticket to and walked away from.
I think that they went overboard because he had been picked up for this and other offenses so many times, that's the only thing I could think of, because you are correct, just write a ticket and move along. Unless they know he hasn't paid the tickets in the past. Still, THIS particular case there shouldve been an indictment, no doubt. I wouldve wanted to see the officer go to trial.
Just a minor correction here: the Supreme Court has ruled that yes, you are required to show ID when asked by a cop. That is because the right to remain silent only applies to questions that, by answering them, you may incriminate yourself (like "Why are you here?"), and your identity is considered to never be incriminating.
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.
You should learn more about this issue, I'd recommend this wikipedia page to start.
If that's the only thing you could think of, you're willfully ignoring a much bigger and more obvious reason: They can get as violent as they want without being held accountable for it as long as the victim is black, which draws in people who want to be violent without being held accountable for it, especially if they're also racists.
Saying that you can only think of reasons that make it seem okay when there's a huge frakkin' elephant in the room that isn't okay is such obvious apologia it's apalling.