Author Topic: Police brutality, looting and racism  (Read 49787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #105 on: August 15, 2014, 10:08:32 AM »
I see a few blurry pics of a big black man. I can't see the face, and don't see any evidence that's Brown. The clothes could be an indicator if I knew what Brown was wearing, but I'd hardly call a plain white shirt and non-descript shorts solid evidence.

And where did the gun go?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9081
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #106 on: August 15, 2014, 10:12:55 AM »


Having said that, are some blacks unfairly arrested, prosecuted and/or convicted?  Absolutely.  It would be naive to suggest otherwise. 



I'm assuming you mean "blacks unfairly arrested because they are black" and just didn't type it.  This isn't a small difference or a difference of semantics.  It is very relevant.  And I realize I am on touchy ground here, but I don't believe any discussion of the criminal justice system vis-à-vis race can be had without a corresponding discussion of the criminal justice system vis-à-vis economics. 

In other words, I am not denying "racism" or minimizing impact.  I am saying, though, that it is not as simple as many - particularly those with something to gain from the conversation - say it is or would like it to be.  There are always multiple factors at play and some of those factors may change even in the middle of the situation.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9081
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #107 on: August 15, 2014, 10:15:08 AM »
Do you even know what those arrests are for?
Kind of bullshit to use an arrest record as a judgement of character if you don't even know what the arrests were for.
Nah, bullshit is bringing it up in the first place. Those arrests had no bearing on the OIS in question. Whether he was a saint or a shitbag isn't really a factor at this stage of the game. At the point in which this encounter began he was a citizen and nothing more or less.


Someone mentioned getting the cops out of their and letting things go as they go... if you ask me, we should get the MEDIA out of there, and let people act according to their conscience, without making this a reality TV show where everyone gets their 86 seconds of fame.

According to the first amendment, the media has just as much of a right to be there as the people who should be acting according to their conscience.

 :facepalm:  Of course they do.   You're going to lecture me on what the Constitution says?

Someone want to help me with protocol here?   I get the idea of "green" for sarcasm, but what is the international color for "facetiousness" and "metaphor"?

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25572
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #108 on: August 15, 2014, 10:28:37 AM »
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown

Looks like the key witness admitted that they took the cigars from the store.  Uh oh.

As peaceful as Ferguson was last night, I fear that this bit of news is gonna make for a bad weekend. :(

Ron Johnson, the cop from the highway patrol, is doing an awesome job thus far, though.  :tup :tup

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6530
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #109 on: August 15, 2014, 10:38:10 AM »
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.
He didn't accuse  anyone of being racist though

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #110 on: August 15, 2014, 10:42:39 AM »
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter. 

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25572
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #111 on: August 15, 2014, 10:47:54 AM »
Right, that's still what we don't know.  This scenario seems very plausible:

-Brown and his friend rob the store.
-The cops are called to the scene.
-Recognizing the description of the two when seeing them on the street, the cop stops and yells at them.
-Brown, knowing he had just robbed a store, gets aggressive when the cops goes to get out of his car.  A scuffle ensues inside.
-Brown, being a much bigger guy and having the momentum advantage of leaning down into the car, gets the better of that exchange and exits the cop car.

What we don't know for sure is what happened next. 

If the cop jumped out and just started firing, then, hell yes, lock him up and throw away the key, but if Brown gave the impression that he was about to charge the cop again, which you can do even if your arms are up (like, "Yeah, I am surrendering," while lurching forward to attack) he may have had no choice but to fire (although he didn't have to shoot to kill).  It's easy to say, "he was unarmed," but if a much bigger man is gonna charge you, a police officer, and you know you have no way of winning that physical battle, it's basically "use your gun to protect yourself or get your ass beaten or possibly killed."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9081
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #112 on: August 15, 2014, 10:49:10 AM »
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.

If I may; I suspect Sheavo is suggesting the "latent" racism of American culture which is oftentimes ignored and easily dismissed.  For example, he pointed out Stadler's comment about 250 years of a system working; where clearly it doesn't for one race of people.  Is Stadler a direct racist; I don't see that at all, but its a "latent" mentality that exists in the majority mindset that is easily skirted around.  Its the same phenomena when a woman grabs her purse when walking past a black man.  Its these latent behaviors that the black community is so angry about.

I don't take offense easily (almost at all) so if asking hard questions and demanding more than blanket assumptions that serve the argument makes me a "racist", well I've been called worse (my 46 years on this planet as a NON-racist stands on it's own). 

But what if one disagrees with the "latent" mentality, either in substance or degree?   Every one of the concepts that Scheavo has pointed out has a economic component to it (independent from the circular argument that the economics themselves are evidence of "latent racism").   Why is the example above automatically an example of "latent racism"?   Why isn't an example of "latent sexism"?   I know FAR AND AWAY more women that would grab their purse not because the guy was black but because it was a guy.

And even if we were going to concede the "latent racism", at what point do we go to the next step?   When the population is 2/3 of one race, at what point does the burden of proof shift?   In a recent election in Ferguson - after a scandal involving a popular, effective, well-qualified black school superintendent that was unfairly forced to resign - three African Americans ran for School Board (seven seats) and despite having 67% of the population, only one was able to win seat (which, by the way, is consistent with the NATIONAL average, even if it doesn't reflect the local community).   Can it really be called "latent racism" when the MAJORITY doesn't take advantage of it's standing?   I don't for a second deny that there are problems with this scenario, but why is it bad to demand that we dig deep and get it right?   The voting issue in Ferguson is huge (and is reflected in other communities across the country) but this issue is likely one of ECONOMICS, not race.   I stole this line, but it is a good one:  "Voting, like paying taxes and obeying the law, is a quaint middle-class occupation."   


Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10195
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #113 on: August 15, 2014, 12:12:35 PM »
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter.


I completely agree.....and, the interaction between Brown , Johnson and the Officer is the question here. Dorian Johnson confirmed to the police that it is indeed he and Brown on the convenience store video.

What the video and crime does for me is cast a doubt on Johnson's story that he and Brown in no way resisted arrest or fought back and give more credibility to the Officers account of the interaction simply because of the fact that literally less than 10 minutes before that interaction Brown was choking a man who wanted to hold him accountable to pay for what he was stealing. It doesn't lend well to then say that Brown 'would never' act in the manner in which the police attest after just acting in that manner moments before.

I hope that the truth of what happened is able to be discovered through investigation as to not have a shadow of doubt lingering in the air over this.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6530
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #114 on: August 15, 2014, 12:15:41 PM »
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter.


Dorian Johnson confirmed to the police that it is indeed he and Brown on the convenience store video.

Not seeing anything about this, link?

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25572
  • Gender: Male

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6530
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #116 on: August 15, 2014, 12:20:32 PM »
Ah, thanks, must have scrolled past it.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2014, 12:30:42 PM »
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.

If I may; I suspect Sheavo is suggesting the "latent" racism of American culture which is oftentimes ignored and easily dismissed.  For example, he pointed out Stadler's comment about 250 years of a system working; where clearly it doesn't for one race of people.  Is Stadler a direct racist; I don't see that at all, but its a "latent" mentality that exists in the majority mindset that is easily skirted around.  Its the same phenomena when a woman grabs her purse when walking past a black man.  Its these latent behaviors that the black community is so angry about.

I don't take offense easily (almost at all) so if asking hard questions and demanding more than blanket assumptions that serve the argument makes me a "racist", well I've been called worse (my 46 years on this planet as a NON-racist stands on it's own). 

But what if one disagrees with the "latent" mentality, either in substance or degree?   Every one of the concepts that Scheavo has pointed out has a economic component to it (independent from the circular argument that the economics themselves are evidence of "latent racism").   Why is the example above automatically an example of "latent racism"?   Why isn't an example of "latent sexism"?   I know FAR AND AWAY more women that would grab their purse not because the guy was black but because it was a guy.

And even if we were going to concede the "latent racism", at what point do we go to the next step?   When the population is 2/3 of one race, at what point does the burden of proof shift?   In a recent election in Ferguson - after a scandal involving a popular, effective, well-qualified black school superintendent that was unfairly forced to resign - three African Americans ran for School Board (seven seats) and despite having 67% of the population, only one was able to win seat (which, by the way, is consistent with the NATIONAL average, even if it doesn't reflect the local community).   Can it really be called "latent racism" when the MAJORITY doesn't take advantage of it's standing?   I don't for a second deny that there are problems with this scenario, but why is it bad to demand that we dig deep and get it right?   The voting issue in Ferguson is huge (and is reflected in other communities across the country) but this issue is likely one of ECONOMICS, not race.   I stole this line, but it is a good one:  "Voting, like paying taxes and obeying the law, is a quaint middle-class occupation."   

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession? Or can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work? Lastly, why are you assuming black people will vote for the black guy? Maybe they voted for whom they thought is the better candidate?


There's certainly an economic element to this, but even when that's in play, you can't just ignore race. Why are blacks economically disadvantaged? There's also things like Crack-Cocaine. If you read through my links earlier in the thread, you'll notice that whites make up the majority of Crack-Cocaine users. Yet blacks are the vast majority of people in prison for crack-cocaine. Not only that, but crack-cocaine had (until Obama) harsher punishment, with the only distinguishable characteristic being that powder cocaine was not as common in the black communities. Time after time, studies show black people are more likely to be pulled over, arrested or questioned as opposed to whites, even in the same neighborhoods, which directly refutes the idea that it is purely an issue of economics (I also pointed out earlier how, in Fergusson, blacks were more likely to be pulled over and arrested for the same thing as whites).

There's also the history of why drugs became illegal in the first place, which was often founded upon racial prejudices and issues. So once again, just talking about drug incarceration and the reasons for it being illegal, you run into the issue of race.

Now here's where I think what you say has import: in how to deal with the problem. The solution to the problem is one that doesn't deal with race, mention race, or anything like that. Ending the War on Drugs is the right thing to do, and the reasons for it have nothing to do with race. This one rather simple thing would dramatically change so much, that it's mindboggling to me at times.

Is racism the only reason? No. And I doubt most police officers involved in the circumstances are racist. You can have instituionalized racism and practices that are unfair and target people without the individual actors being racist or necessarily unfair. I think El Barto has explained how this works in other ways, and I think it applies here.

And as a general thought:

I also want to bring up something I feel like I would in other circumstances. Let us say the cops story is 100% accurate. Brown went for the cops, and his life was in imminent danger. Well, what about if our cops weren't armed with guns? Then there would be no gun to potentially threaten his life. In the Trayvon Martin case, I harped on the fact that Zimmerman brought the gun into the situation, and as such, bears responsibility for it. The same is true in this case. I can see the rational behind saying a citizen has the right to defend himself with a gun, even though I generally disagree with it, but a cop is doing the job on his own free will, and as such, should take on danger, instead of making situations where citizens are in danger. Officers should have non-lethal weapons on hand, with guns being held in reserve and requiring approval to be handed out (like Norway).

Police not having a gun would dramatically change the relationship and dynamics of a relationship between citizens and officers. Officers would be more cautious, maybe more respectful. Citizens would know that the cop is more on an equal footing.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #118 on: August 15, 2014, 12:35:45 PM »
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.

If I may; I suspect Sheavo is suggesting the "latent" racism of American culture which is oftentimes ignored and easily dismissed.  For example, he pointed out Stadler's comment about 250 years of a system working; where clearly it doesn't for one race of people.  Is Stadler a direct racist; I don't see that at all, but its a "latent" mentality that exists in the majority mindset that is easily skirted around.  Its the same phenomena when a woman grabs her purse when walking past a black man.  Its these latent behaviors that the black community is so angry about.

I don't take offense easily (almost at all) so if asking hard questions and demanding more than blanket assumptions that serve the argument makes me a "racist", well I've been called worse (my 46 years on this planet as a NON-racist stands on it's own). 

But what if one disagrees with the "latent" mentality, either in substance or degree?   Every one of the concepts that Scheavo has pointed out has a economic component to it (independent from the circular argument that the economics themselves are evidence of "latent racism").   Why is the example above automatically an example of "latent racism"?   Why isn't an example of "latent sexism"?   I know FAR AND AWAY more women that would grab their purse not because the guy was black but because it was a guy.

And even if we were going to concede the "latent racism", at what point do we go to the next step?   When the population is 2/3 of one race, at what point does the burden of proof shift?   In a recent election in Ferguson - after a scandal involving a popular, effective, well-qualified black school superintendent that was unfairly forced to resign - three African Americans ran for School Board (seven seats) and despite having 67% of the population, only one was able to win seat (which, by the way, is consistent with the NATIONAL average, even if it doesn't reflect the local community).   Can it really be called "latent racism" when the MAJORITY doesn't take advantage of it's standing?   I don't for a second deny that there are problems with this scenario, but why is it bad to demand that we dig deep and get it right?   The voting issue in Ferguson is huge (and is reflected in other communities across the country) but this issue is likely one of ECONOMICS, not race.   I stole this line, but it is a good one:  "Voting, like paying taxes and obeying the law, is a quaint middle-class occupation."

I didn't call you a racist at all. I am suggesting latent behavior which, yes, can also be sexist.  Both can happen and both should be addressed.  In this occurrence; I am raising the race situation.

For the situation you raised; are you suggesting the black majority should have voted for the black candidate solely on race?

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #119 on: August 15, 2014, 12:42:01 PM »
Guns?







Worm, anyone?  :P

 :biggrin:

Just trying to break the tension a little bit :-*

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18681
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #120 on: August 15, 2014, 12:47:05 PM »
Police not having a gun would dramatically change the relationship and dynamics of a relationship between citizens and officers. Officers would be more cautious, maybe more respectful. Citizens would know that the cop is more on an equal footing.
Definitely more fitting in one of the 8 or so Guns Are Icky threads, but there are too many guns here now for that to work.

Another interesting aspect of your idea is that when prevented with lesser options, cops tend to go way overboard with using them. We're seeing that now with tazers. Cops love their fucking tazers. Seems more plausible that if you want to reduce cop on citizen violence you remove everything but the gun. My take on it is that most cops, just like most civvies, don't want to shoot anybody. It's a huge pain in the ass. But if the end result of escalating a confrontation is a fist fight or a shooting, perhaps they won't be so keen to be dicks.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #121 on: August 15, 2014, 01:10:25 PM »
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter.

I completely agree.....and, the interaction between Brown , Johnson and the Officer is the question here.



Actually, no, it's not.  The question is whether or not that kid had his hands in the air when that cop pumped a few rounds into him.  Everything is just noise.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9081
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #122 on: August 15, 2014, 01:32:09 PM »

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession? Or can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work? Lastly, why are you assuming black people will vote for the black guy? Maybe they voted for whom they thought is the better candidate?

"They've been given" a felony?   Felonies are EARNED.   At what point does the nonsense stop and accountability and personal responsibility take over?  This is, after all, a country where black Americans can and do run successfully for President of the United States, Senator, Representative, the CEO of my business is an African American... Even if the "latent racism" argument is accurate, it doesn't PRECLUDE any of the things I'm saying even if it makes it harder.

In Atlanta in the late '90's and early 00's, the churches in South Atlanta would have "voting parties".  What would happen is, the pastor of the church would convene everyone at the parish, and there would be food, and drinks, and services... and every hour or so, the bus would take the parishoners to the voting booth to vote.  This would run from when the polls open at 8:00a to when they closed (I think it was 10:00 pm then).  Now, the only proviso was that the parishoners  would have to vote for the candidate that the pastor recommended, but that's a small point.  ;0  Either way, I'm white and it's funny, I have to work on a Tuesdays as well, but when I am inclined to do so, I find a way.  I have, in my life, walked, driven, and ridden my bike to the polling place. 

As for the last, then it isn't latent racism if they have the choice, they made the choice and the numbers of black elected officials represents the will of the community.  I only assumed that they would vote for the black candidate, because the other assumption de facto rules out the notion of "latent racism". 

Quote
There's certainly an economic element to this, but even when that's in play, you can't just ignore race. Why are blacks economically disadvantaged? There's also things like Crack-Cocaine. If you read through my links earlier in the thread, you'll notice that whites make up the majority of Crack-Cocaine users. Yet blacks are the vast majority of people in prison for crack-cocaine. Not only that, but crack-cocaine had (until Obama) harsher punishment, with the only distinguishable characteristic being that powder cocaine was not as common in the black communities. Time after time, studies show black people are more likely to be pulled over, arrested or questioned as opposed to whites, even in the same neighborhoods, which directly refutes the idea that it is purely an issue of economics (I also pointed out earlier how, in Fergusson, blacks were more likely to be pulled over and arrested for the same thing as whites).

Those facts are all over the map, and DON'T point to the "grand conspiracy" that you are trying to paint.   Over 70% of the population is white; no wonder "more whites use crack cocaine".  The actual PERCENTAGES tell a different story:  FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:  http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickoptions.do, 5% of blacks have ever used crack, only 3% of whites.  The "prison" stat is every bit as much an economic issue as it is a race issue.    And not as common because why?  To get to crack you NEED powder; so it isn't availability.  Might it not be an economic issue?   You can stretch a unit of powder a LONG way (and therefore make more money) with the rock.  Don't see "race" in that equation either. 

Quote

There's also the history of why drugs became illegal in the first place, which was often founded upon racial prejudices and issues. So once again, just talking about drug incarceration and the reasons for it being illegal, you run into the issue of race.

Now here's where I think what you say has import: in how to deal with the problem. The solution to the problem is one that doesn't deal with race, mention race, or anything like that. Ending the War on Drugs is the right thing to do, and the reasons for it have nothing to do with race. This one rather simple thing would dramatically change so much, that it's mindboggling to me at times.

Is racism the only reason? No. And I doubt most police officers involved in the circumstances are racist. You can have instituionalized racism and practices that are unfair and target people without the individual actors being racist or necessarily unfair. I think El Barto has explained how this works in other ways, and I think it applies here.

If it matters to you, I agree with you on the war on drugs (though probably for other reasons).   I think it is asinine that we are spending the resources we are spending on fighting that.   I don't think people quite understand how massive a shift that would be economically by ending that debacle.

And I am not suggesting race places NO part.  I just think the emphasis is out of whack and often misleading.  There has to be some rigor and some substance to looking at the numbers, so that we are on firm ground with respect to "cause", "effect", "correlation" and "coincidence".


Quote

And as a general thought:

I also want to bring up something I feel like I would in other circumstances. Let us say the cops story is 100% accurate. Brown went for the cops, and his life was in imminent danger. Well, what about if our cops weren't armed with guns? Then there would be no gun to potentially threaten his life. In the Trayvon Martin case, I harped on the fact that Zimmerman brought the gun into the situation, and as such, bears responsibility for it. The same is true in this case. I can see the rational behind saying a citizen has the right to defend himself with a gun, even though I generally disagree with it, but a cop is doing the job on his own free will, and as such, should take on danger, instead of making situations where citizens are in danger. Officers should have non-lethal weapons on hand, with guns being held in reserve and requiring approval to be handed out (like Norway).

Police not having a gun would dramatically change the relationship and dynamics of a relationship between citizens and officers. Officers would be more cautious, maybe more respectful. Citizens would know that the cop is more on an equal footing.

That is absolutely not how it would go down.   El Barto has it right of course.   That solution would just make sitting ducks of the police. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9081
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #123 on: August 15, 2014, 01:36:11 PM »


Another interesting aspect of your idea is that when prevented with lesser options, cops tend to go way overboard with using them. We're seeing that now with tazers. Cops love their fucking tazers. Seems more plausible that if you want to reduce cop on citizen violence you remove everything but the gun. My take on it is that most cops, just like most civvies, don't want to shoot anybody. It's a huge pain in the ass. But if the end result of escalating a confrontation is a fist fight or a shooting, perhaps they won't be so keen to be dicks.

Cops love their fucking tazers?   C'mon, we're just piling on now.  Really.  The generalizations are getting out of hand.  The vast majority of cops DON'T want to shoot anybody, and not because it is a pain in the ass, but because THEY DON'T WANT TO SHOOT ANYBODY.   And the vast majority of cops DON'T want to taze anyone either.    I get that there are those exceptions, and I certainly understand the argument of "we need to stay diligent until there are no exceptions", I'll grant you that.  But operating on the premise that every cop IS the exception; how is that any different than operating under the assumption that every black man is a criminal?     

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18681
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #124 on: August 15, 2014, 02:07:13 PM »


Another interesting aspect of your idea is that when prevented with lesser options, cops tend to go way overboard with using them. We're seeing that now with tazers. Cops love their fucking tazers. Seems more plausible that if you want to reduce cop on citizen violence you remove everything but the gun. My take on it is that most cops, just like most civvies, don't want to shoot anybody. It's a huge pain in the ass. But if the end result of escalating a confrontation is a fist fight or a shooting, perhaps they won't be so keen to be dicks.

Cops love their fucking tazers?   C'mon, we're just piling on now.  Really.  The generalizations are getting out of hand.  The vast majority of cops DON'T want to shoot anybody, and not because it is a pain in the ass, but because THEY DON'T WANT TO SHOOT ANYBODY.   And the vast majority of cops DON'T want to taze anyone either.    I get that there are those exceptions, and I certainly understand the argument of "we need to stay diligent until there are no exceptions", I'll grant you that.  But operating on the premise that every cop IS the exception; how is that any different than operating under the assumption that every black man is a criminal?   
I said they don't want shoot anybody. Just like us civvies. My point about it being a PITA wasn't to offer an explanation as to why, but to reenforce it. People will be less willing to shoot somebody, even if there's a valid cause, because of the hassle that will follow. It could possibly provide the bad guy a small amount of extra leeway before the bang.

As for the tazers, they do enjoy them. I mean let's be honest, wouldn't you? More to the point, though, is that they've made cops lazy. When it becomes that easy to incapacitate somebody, do you really want to exercise the same amount of patience you had to before you were issued one? Do you really want to go hands on, even if a minimal amount of restraint was necessary, if you can drop them with nearly no effort at all?

At this point I'll mention I'm aware of the possible advantage of tazing somebody versus restraining them. Given the tendency for people to "break their own arm" by having cops restrain them (and feel free to Youtube "cop breaks arm" if you need dozens of graphic examples), the ride might well be the better alternative. This doesn't alter the fact that cops have been very quick to avail themselves of the opportunity to take the easy way out. Which, as I pointed out in the post you quoted, is a pretty organic thing to happen.

Look, I'll admit that I tend to generalize a bit when discussing cops. At the same time, I don't think you recognize just how many rotten apples there are. Moreover, I don't think you recognize how endemic it is. My point generally isn't to rag on cops on a personal level. It's to point out that the both human nature and the nature of the job put them into a position where a great many people would be foolish not to recognize them as the bad guys.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #125 on: August 15, 2014, 02:30:53 PM »

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession?

"They've been given" a felony?   Felonies are EARNED.   




Lecturing the forum on semantics and/or grammar doesn't come off as a particularly strong position from which to argue your point  :)


You know what he meant, just like the rest of us knew what he meant.  Obfuscation may seem like a viable tactic here, but that dog don't hunt.




Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18681
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #126 on: August 15, 2014, 02:39:43 PM »

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession?

"They've been given" a felony?   Felonies are EARNED.   




Lecturing the forum on semantics and/or grammar doesn't come off as a particularly strong position from which to argue your point  :)


You know what he meant, just like the rest of us knew what he meant.  Obfuscation may seem like a viable tactic here, but that dog don't hunt.
Nah, it was a valid distinction. In whether or not it's fair that a person can or can't vote, whether or not they are felons for a fair or valid reason is important.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #127 on: August 15, 2014, 02:41:57 PM »
uh, you missed my point


my point is, whether or not the word "given" or "earned" was used in the point that Schevo was making is nothing but a diversion to pivot the conversation into blaming the victim.  Again.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #128 on: August 15, 2014, 02:52:51 PM »

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession? Or can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work? Lastly, why are you assuming black people will vote for the black guy? Maybe they voted for whom they thought is the better candidate?

"They've been given" a felony?   Felonies are EARNED.   At what point does the nonsense stop and accountability and personal responsibility take over?  This is, after all, a country where black Americans can and do run successfully for President of the United States, Senator, Representative, the CEO of my business is an African American... Even if the "latent racism" argument is accurate, it doesn't PRECLUDE any of the things I'm saying even if it makes it harder.

We're the ones who made non-violent drug crimes a felony. More importantly, as kirk points out, youre taking the word out of context. Wish you would be as understanding of context for me as you do fot Gene Simmons.

Exceptions don't make the rule, and I'd say thats what you did at the end there.

Quote
In Atlanta in the late '90's and early 00's, the churches in South Atlanta would have "voting parties".  What would happen is, the pastor of the church would convene everyone at the parish, and there would be food, and drinks, and services... and every hour or so, the bus would take the parishoners to the voting booth to vote.  This would run from when the polls open at 8:00a to when they closed (I think it was 10:00 pm then).  Now, the only proviso was that the parishoners  would have to vote for the candidate that the pastor recommended, but that's a small point.  ;0  Either way, I'm white and it's funny, I have to work on a Tuesdays as well, but when I am inclined to do so, I find a way.  I have, in my life, walked, driven, and ridden my bike to the polling place. 

What does the first part have to do with anything? And statistically speaking, more white people have the ability to go on tuesdays and vote. And when many elections are won by a few percentage difference, that makes an important difference.

Quote
As for the last, then it isn't latent racism if they have the choice, they made the choice and the numbers of black elected officials represents the will of the community.  I only assumed that they would vote for the black candidate, because the other assumption de facto rules out the notion of "latent racism".

Huh? Youre making my head hurt with all your circular logic. I also don't see how it matters one iota what color of skin the officials are. Lets talk about the policies and practices.

Quote
Quote
There's certainly an economic element to this, but even when that's in play, you can't just ignore race. Why are blacks economically disadvantaged? There's also things like Crack-Cocaine. If you read through my links earlier in the thread, you'll notice that whites make up the majority of Crack-Cocaine users. Yet blacks are the vast majority of people in prison for crack-cocaine. Not only that, but crack-cocaine had (until Obama) harsher punishment, with the only distinguishable characteristic being that powder cocaine was not as common in the black communities. Time after time, studies show black people are more likely to be pulled over, arrested or questioned as opposed to whites, even in the same neighborhoods, which directly refutes the idea that it is purely an issue of economics (I also pointed out earlier how, in Fergusson, blacks were more likely to be pulled over and arrested for the same thing as whites).

Those facts are all over the map, and DON'T point to the "grand conspiracy" that you are trying to paint.   Over 70% of the population is white; no wonder "more whites use crack cocaine".  The actual PERCENTAGES tell a different story:  FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:  http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickoptions.do, 5% of blacks have ever used crack, only 3% of whites.  The "prison" stat is every bit as much an economic issue as it is a race issue.    And not as common because why?  To get to crack you NEED powder; so it isn't availability.  Might it not be an economic issue?   You can stretch a unit of powder a LONG way (and therefore make more money) with the rock.  Don't see "race" in that equation either. 

Nice obfuscation with percentages, which is a complete butchery of logic and statistics. More whites do crack-cocaine. We would then expect, in a fair system, for incarceration rates to be close to this reality. But we see the entire thing massively reversed, with more blacks being incarcerated for crack-cocaine. Could you tell me why you believe the percentages to matter?

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

There are more poor whites in America than blacks. Overall, its fairly similar in number, at about 5 million. If economics were a large factor, then we would expect there to be fairly similar incarceration number. We don't. Your hypothesis is factually wrong.

Quote
Quote
And as a general thought:

I also want to bring up something I feel like I would in other circumstances. Let us say the cops story is 100% accurate. Brown went for the cops, and his life was in imminent danger. Well, what about if our cops weren't armed with guns? Then there would be no gun to potentially threaten his life. In the Trayvon Martin case, I harped on the fact that Zimmerman brought the gun into the situation, and as such, bears responsibility for it. The same is true in this case. I can see the rational behind saying a citizen has the right to defend himself with a gun, even though I generally disagree with it, but a cop is doing the job on his own free will, and as such, should take on danger, instead of making situations where citizens are in danger. Officers should have non-lethal weapons on hand, with guns being held in reserve and requiring approval to be handed out (like Norway).

Police not having a gun would dramatically change the relationship and dynamics of a relationship between citizens and officers. Officers would be more cautious, maybe more respectful. Citizens would know that the cop is more on an equal footing.

That is absolutely not how it would go down.   El Barto has it right of course.   That solution would just make sitting ducks of the police.

Like how last night in Ferguson was supposed to be worse?

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18681
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #129 on: August 15, 2014, 02:58:11 PM »
uh, you missed my point


my point is, whether or not the word "given" or "earned" was used in the point that Schevo was making is nothing but a diversion to pivot the conversation into blaming the victim.  Again.
Scheavo says:
How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession?

Making no distinction between how many of those felonies were valid or not.

Stadler asks the question:At what point does the nonsense stop and accountability and personal responsibility take over?

And follows it up with: Even if the "latent racism" argument is accurate, it doesn't PRECLUDE any of the things I'm saying even if it makes it harder.

Seems to me that the point was that Scheavo ascribed victim status to all of the felons, and Stadler suggested that some of them might have victimized themselves. Neither a diversion nor an unfair statement.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25572
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #130 on: August 15, 2014, 03:07:28 PM »
Okay, I'd like to see this explained a little better:

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession? Or can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work? 

What about the white people or Mexicans or Asians who can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work?  What about blacks specifically makes it more likely that they'd be working on a Tuesday to the point where they can't vote?

And statistically speaking, more white people have the ability to go on tuesdays and vote.

If the argument is, "There are more whites than blacks, therefore more whites have the ability vote than blacks," then okay.  Otherwise, I don't get this at all.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #131 on: August 15, 2014, 03:28:32 PM »
Poverty, and the kinds of jobs whites work vs blacks.**

And I never said it didn't apply to a lot of people, or other races, and it's fallacious to assume I did. It certainly does apply to a lot of whites, Hispanics and Asians. Stadler was making the argument that blacks should take it to the polls and I gave a list of reasons why the election results aren't accurate or a good measure of the populace and its' desires.

** in a GENERAL and STATISTICAL sense, not a case by case issue, or as if there are black or white jobs.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18681
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #132 on: August 15, 2014, 03:54:51 PM »
Poverty, and the kinds of jobs whites work vs blacks.**

And I never said it didn't apply to a lot of people, or other races, and it's fallacious to assume I did. It certainly does apply to a lot of whites, Hispanics and Asians. Stadler was making the argument that blacks should take it to the polls and I gave a list of reasons why the election results aren't accurate or a good measure of the populace and its' desires.

** in a GENERAL and STATISTICAL sense, not a case by case issue, or as if there are black or white jobs.
And some of your reasons are being questioned. For the record, I'm inclined to agree to the larger point, but some of the specifics seem a bit shaky. Why is it that black folk can't go to the poles on Tuesday again? You'd think that those of us who work 9-5 M-F would have the harder time.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #133 on: August 15, 2014, 05:11:27 PM »
It's not just working 9-5, it's the kind of job you have, or maybe even jobs. If you work a service industry job, you have a harder time getting off that little bit of time you need to vote. There's more competition for the shifts, and very often too poor to take the time off. Lastly, more 9-5 jobs are salary, and employers more willing to let their employees take a slightly longer lunch break to vote. And it is a problem for everyone, and effects poor whites just as much. But there are a lot more affluent whites who can make it. I've heard it mentioned this is one reason we see Dems being generally more successfull (in recent years) in Presidential election years, and Republicans in the off years. As well as a major problem with the primary and caucus system.

Hell, being poor also makes it harder to get to the polls.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/why-are-the-poor-and-minorities-less-likely-to-vote/282896/2/

Quote
A close examination of the reasons non-voters give for staying home—especially those lower down the socioeconomic ladder—suggests that a slew of practical barriers continue to stand in the way of full and equal exercise of the franchise. According to a Caltech/MIT survey of both registered and unregistered eligible voters who did not cast a ballot in 2008, disapproval of candidate choices, busyness, illness, transportation, and registration/ administrative problems were the leading causes of non-participation, with considerable variation across groups.

While income and education levels were not recorded in the survey, race and age were major factors influencing who made it to the polls on Election Day and what kind of barriers they faced. Black and Hispanic citizens, for whom the poverty rate is close to three times that of whites, were three times as likely as whites to not have the requisite I.D. and to have difficulty finding the correct polling place. They were more than three times as likely as whites to not receive a requested absentee ballots, and roughly twice as likely to be out of town on Election Day or to have to wait in long lines. They were also substantially more likely than whites to report transportation problems and bad time and location as reasons for not getting to the polls, while white voters were the most likely to cite disapproval of candidate choices. Taken together, the surveys suggest that white citizens who abstain from voting do so primarily by choice, while the majority of minority non-voters face problems along the way.

....

Then there are the lines. Nearly 40 percent of voters reported waiting in line on Election Day 2012 and 17 percent reported waits of 30 minutes or more—primarily people of color in urban areas and the state of Florida. Black and Hispanic voters waited an average of more than 20 minutes to vote, almost twice as long as whites. In larger, urban counties with populations exceeding 150,000 voters, the average wait was almost 20 minutes, more than double the time in counties with 50,000 voters or less. Young voters also experienced significantly longer wait times, and other Election Day hurdles, than their older counterparts. Finally, in Florida, voters waited an average of 45 minutes. An estimated 200,000 Florida voters "gave up in frustration" before they could cast a ballot in 2012. Overall, nearly one in 10 Americans reported that they or someone they knew tried to vote but was not able to in 2012, and close to half of eligible Americans who did not cast a ballot cited external administrative barriers as the major cause.

There is no one reason, theres a host of them. It's easier to vote during a work day if you don't have to travel as far, own a car, and don't have long a long wait time when you get there.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18681
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #134 on: August 15, 2014, 07:54:14 PM »
I will reiterate what I said before. I largely agree with you on the larger point that there is systemic disenfranchisement taking place, and also think that a lot of the examples are bullshit. Can't find the polling place? Really? The hours don't work for you? Polling is 12 hours, isn't it? The thing about IDs and missing absentee ballots is very real, but some of the reasons are simple enough things to get around if you actually give a damn.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #135 on: August 15, 2014, 07:54:29 PM »
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter.


I completely agree.....and, the interaction between Brown , Johnson and the Officer is the question here. Dorian Johnson confirmed to the police that it is indeed he and Brown on the convenience store video.

What the video and crime does for me is cast a doubt on Johnson's story that he and Brown in no way resisted arrest or fought back and give more credibility to the Officers account of the interaction simply because of the fact that literally less than 10 minutes before that interaction Brown was choking a man who wanted to hold him accountable to pay for what he was stealing. It doesn't lend well to then say that Brown 'would never' act in the manner in which the police attest after just acting in that manner moments before.

I hope that the truth of what happened is able to be discovered through investigation as to not have a shadow of doubt lingering in the air over this.

For me, it does the opposite. Well, not the video, but the fact that Johnson? is being so candid about the events. He's talking to the authorities and admitting to participating in a crime. He's sticking his neck out a little, telling the truth when it doesn't benefit him, and that to me says the rest of his story is more likely to be true.

And choking seems way hyperbolic. He shoved him. His actions aren't very good, but stealing a pack of cigars and shoving away someone is hardly the most violent thing, and is a FAR stretch from being violent or dangerous. He's a young kid, he's allowed to make some stupid decisions, and it doesn't make him dangerous or say anything about him getting shot.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10195
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #136 on: August 15, 2014, 08:15:43 PM »
For me, it does the opposite. Well, not the video, but the fact that Johnson? is being so candid about the events. He's talking to the authorities and admitting to participating in a crime. He's sticking his neck out a little, telling the truth when it doesn't benefit him, and that to me says the rest of his story is more likely to be true.

And choking seems way hyperbolic. He shoved him. His actions aren't very good, but stealing a pack of cigars and shoving away someone is hardly the most violent thing, and is a FAR stretch from being violent or dangerous. He's a young kid, he's allowed to make some stupid decisions, and it doesn't make him dangerous or say anything about him getting shot.

Really....Johnson being candid about the events?  :lol He only admitted it was he and Brown AFTER faced with a video that captured him and Brown committing a crime. Nothing candid about that at all.

Sure the 'choke' wasn't MMA caliber but it was a shot to the throat area of a much smaller man....and not only that Brown then uses his enormous size to intimidate the victim even further by confidently strutting towards him.

Yeah he's a young kid but that doesn't pardon you from the consequences of your actions....it only makes those consequences tougher to take.




I just had a 15 minute conversation with my neighbor who works in intelligence directly for the St. Louis police departments Chief....Chief Dodson.  He said like so many of us are wondering....it's going to come down to the autopsy and 'where' Brown was shot and that if he was helplessly gunned down as is contested by the community that there really will be no way to 'hide' that fact. He wouldn't divulge much else....only that it's been a long week.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #137 on: August 15, 2014, 08:23:29 PM »
I will reiterate what I said before. I largely agree with you on the larger point that there is systemic disenfranchisement taking place, and also think that a lot of the examples are bullshit. Can't find the polling place? Really? The hours don't work for you? Polling is 12 hours, isn't it? The thing about IDs and missing absentee ballots is very real, but some of the reasons are simple enough things to get around if you actually give a damn.

Then lets ignore most everything else, because I doubt we'll get anywhere with them, and deal solely with the wait time to vote, and place to vote. If you have a small window to vote, you cant vote if you have a long wait time. And if you're polling place got moved recently, and you weren't informed about it (which is happening more lately, in part because more people vote absentee and not as many polling places are needed), you may not have the time to recover, find the new place, and get back to work in time. Especially when once yo udo get to the right place, you'd be likely to wait a lot longer.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/heres-why-black-people-have-to-wait-twice-as-long-to-vote-as-whites/274791/

Quote
    "Viewed nationally, African Americans waited an average of 23 minutes to vote, compared to 12 minutes for whites; Hispanics waited 19 minutes. While there are other individual-level demographic difference present in the responses, none stands out as much as race."

What's impressive is how comparatively little variation there was in other demographic categories:

    The average wait time among those with household incomes less than $30,000 was 12 minutes versus 14 minutes for those with household incomes greater than $100,000.
    Strong Democrats waited an average of 16 minutes versus 11 minutes for strong Republicans.
    Respondents who said they paid close attention to the news waited 13.2 minutes; those who said they had little interest waited 12.8 minutes.
    Residents of the wealthiest ZIP codes (average household incomes of $50,000 and up) waited 13 minutes, versus 12 minutes for residents of the poorest ZIP codes ($30,000 and below).

Good points in the article about how race may not be the reason for this, but that doesn't invalidate my point about it being more difficult for them to vote on a Tuesday. People have lives to live, maybe kids to take care of, a family to feed and groceries to buy, maybe a lot of things on week day. And my point earlier about it being in a list of things is that this may not be all that common of a reason. It was a list of reasons, which all add up to something important. I feel like you're placing undue importance on this issue, and acting as if I said it was the only reason, or a major reason, when I was just rambling off a list of reasons. I really only need one person for my statement to technically be valid.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #138 on: August 16, 2014, 04:18:38 AM »
All of the stuff about the kid stealing the cigars is interesting, doesn't really have anything to do with the case, because apparently the cop who shot him was unaware of the heist; his encounter with the kid was unrelated.

It does color the impression that some in the community were attempting to paint of him, though.  But again, no direct bearing, especially if he was shot in the back.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9081
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #139 on: August 16, 2014, 07:21:11 AM »
As for the tazers, they do enjoy them. I mean let's be honest, wouldn't you? More to the point, though, is that they've made cops lazy. When it becomes that easy to incapacitate somebody, do you really want to exercise the same amount of patience you had to before you were issued one? Do you really want to go hands on, even if a minimal amount of restraint was necessary, if you can drop them with nearly no effort at all?

At this point I'll mention I'm aware of the possible advantage of tazing somebody versus restraining them. Given the tendency for people to "break their own arm" by having cops restrain them (and feel free to Youtube "cop breaks arm" if you need dozens of graphic examples), the ride might well be the better alternative. This doesn't alter the fact that cops have been very quick to avail themselves of the opportunity to take the easy way out. Which, as I pointed out in the post you quoted, is a pretty organic thing to happen.

Depends who it is I am tazing.  ;)   

But seriously, I do understand your point, but - and I hope I'm not out of line with this - can you see even a little bit how to me it sounds like the conclusion is leading the evidence?  Why does a tazer have to be the easy way out, and a thrill?  Why can't it be that the cops are given tools; some are permanent and some are temporary, and if it means stabilizing a situation NOW and ABSOLUTELY not using the permanent tool versus letting things go longer, potentially out of control, and perhaps requiring the permanent tool, why is that choice being looked at as defacto bad?   And your point about "hands on" is a GREAT one (I'll tell you an interesting point in a minute) but again, why does that automatically mean a BAD choice by the officer?   What would you rather have, all things being equal?

Quote
Look, I'll admit that I tend to generalize a bit when discussing cops. At the same time, I don't think you recognize just how many rotten apples there are. Moreover, I don't think you recognize how endemic it is. My point generally isn't to rag on cops on a personal level. It's to point out that the both human nature and the nature of the job put them into a position where a great many people would be foolish not to recognize them as the bad guys.

No, I do, actually, because the couple times a year I see my brother in person (actually going to see him next week!) honest to god, we talk about this stuff.  We WILL talk about Ferguson, I guarantee you.  We WILL talk about the incident in Glastonbury, CT where the mom is bitching about these very things (even though everv time the police have come to her house they have either observed, photographed or video'd an incident of underage drinking or drugging that she did or should have known about).  I do tend (tend, not 100% there) to agree that the nature of the job leaves a lot of opportunity for these things to happen, I just disagree that it is "human nature" and that somehow cops are different than the rest of society when it comes to this stuff. 

Google "Enfield Cop" and you'll see another story.  Now, I've named three stories right in a row, but let's not lose perspective:  that is still not the "majority" of officers or precincts, and at least in the Enfield case, the police are doing the right thing.   The guy is off the street and on leave.   They want nothing to do with his nonsense!!  if you want to talk about "human nature" what about the human instinct to be safe and be liked?  Why would that department want to be associated with that nonsense???   It makes no sense. 

(Interesting point:  As I understand it, you want to know what the BIGGEST concern is for the police, at least the ones I've talked with?  MRSA.  You want a get out of jail free card?  You want to beat that ticket?  Tell the officer you were speeding to get the results of your MRSA test.   I don't buy many of your arguments with respect to tazers and laziness and such - at least not for the majority of the police - but if you told me cops were going tazer crazy because they wanted to minimize physical contact with their suspects, I'd buy that in a heartbeat.)