Ferguson, MO

[Gulo Blue]

all those that protest, burn shit down and put on golden casket dancing funerals when killed by cop but not by a gang. Sharpton going to lead the charge for these kids?

https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/06/21/3-year-old-boy-fatally-shot-on-west-side/

Anyone know where all the BLM donation money is going? anyone?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyCh6pH9PG0

OK, then with the gang related deaths, which laws or labor agreements protect gangs that we need to push to change?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Who says they don't?

I?m going out on a limb and say black people who kill other black people.

Just under 90% of black homicides are committed by other blacks.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I’m going out on a limb and say black people who kill other black people.

Just under 90% of black homicides are committed by other blacks.

But who, relevant to the political discussion supports them? This is an absurd form of whaddaboudism. Since there's no valid political position to pull a 'what about' on, people just point to crime as the opposition? We've moved on from just fallacious arguments to a fallacious argument against a position nobody holds. Nobody supports black on black crime as a political position and what, if somebody did, that would that somehow impact whether or not police are held or not held accountable appropriately?

 

[mhughes0021]

a rational person would realize there are several truths...not just one.

Its ok to say "hey you know what...if you dont do something stupid....you wont get shot"...and people should be able to say that without getting attacked by the Woke mob.

Its also ok to say its not right for americans of any color to be targeted. Its simple fact that they are....i live in a community that has 80000 people and has 5 cops. neighborhoods of 80000 people that have a higher black/hispanic make up have like 5 - 6 times that number of police in their departments....atleast. Thats not racially biased systemically? All 25 of those officers have quotas to hit to BRING IN $$$. Not protect the public....to make MONEY!

 

[tomdalton22]

a rational person would realize there are several truths...not just one.

Its ok to say "hey you know what...if you dont do something stupid....you wont get shot"...and people should be able to say that without getting attacked by the Woke mob.

Its also ok to say its not right for americans of any color to be targeted. Its simple fact that they are....i live in a community that has 80000 people and has 5 cops. neighborhoods of 80000 people that have a higher black/hispanic make up have like 5 - 6 times that number of police in their departments....atleast. Thats not racially biased systemically? All 25 of those officers have quotas to hit to BRING IN $$$. Not protect the public....to make MONEY!

typically, a community will hire a proportionate number of law enforcement officers to the number of crimes committed/criminal activity. My guess is that the community that you live in doesn't have a lot of crime, therefore they haven't needed to add to the police force. It's not based on the ethnic makeup of the community.

Believe it or not, communities don't want to spend a large portion of their budget on police officers. They would prefer to have as few of them as possible.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Its ok to say "hey you know what...if you dont do something stupid....you wont get shot"...and people should be able to say that without getting attacked by the Woke mob.

What do you mean by 'attacked'? If someone disagrees and cites a counterexample to your statement, that's no attack.

 

[tinselwolverine]

But who, relevant to the political discussion supports them? This is an absurd form of whaddaboudism. Since there's no valid political position to pull a 'what about' on, people just point to crime as the opposition? We've moved on from just fallacious arguments to a fallacious argument against a position nobody holds. Nobody supports black on black crime as a political position and what, if somebody did, that would that somehow impact whether or not police are held or not held accountable appropriately?

It?s relevant in the context of the insane over reaction we?re seeing in the BLM protests that start peacefully and become riots.

Derek Chauvin has been charged with murder and the other three are being charged as accessories for the George Floyd event.

Garrett Rolfe has been charged with capital murder and Devin Brosnan is charged with aggravated assault regarding the Atlanta event with the dangerous resisting criminal Brooks - granted, maybe that has more to do with happened after the shootings; we?ll have to see where the investigations lead.

Yet the burning and destruction, spurred on by BLM continues, nevertheless.

So who?s not being held accountable?

The BLM leaders who are trying to fallaciously paint black people as victims of a violent white hierarchy (that doesn?t exist), when in fact black people are much more definitely, in every measure possible, victims of crimes perpetrated amongst themselves, and the BLM leadership continues in this narrative for its own agenda, which has nothing to do with social justice or meaningful reform - that?s who.

 

[byco42]

Chris Hayes's Tweet:

"So the Madison crowd (sic) last night: knocked over the statue of an abolitionist immigrant who died fighting for the union, a statue commemorating women's suffrage and beat up a 60 year old state senator and left him lying on the ground."

I think he's at least "disappointed" in these "activities?"

 

[mhughes0021]

What do you mean by 'attacked'? If someone disagrees and cites a counterexample to your statement, that's no attack.

Alot of people are very quick to turn to those that have that opinion and say "your white so it doesnt really matter what you say" or quickly lump you into the racist category for having that opinion. In the case of Atlanta for example. Its safe to assume he would not have been shot if he was peacefully cuffed and placed in custody. Which proves the "dont do stupid shit and you wont get shot" and it can also be true that if you steal a non lethal weapon and flee you shouldnt be shot (i understand a lot of people have a harder time with that one...a feel he probably deserved to be shot). But the point is....both can be true.

 

[mhughes0021]

typically, a community will hire a proportionate number of law enforcement officers to the number of crimes committed/criminal activity. My guess is that the community that you live in doesn't have a lot of crime, therefore they haven't needed to add to the police force. It's not based on the ethnic makeup of the community.

Believe it or not, communities don't want to spend a large portion of their budget on police officers. They would prefer to have as few of them as possible.

Understood...but once you put in the quotas and money factor....you quickly realize that culture equates to more cops means more arrests, more targeting, and more unlawful stops in areas predominately of color. Hence BLM, racial targeting etc etc.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It?s relevant in the context of the insane over reaction we?re seeing in the BLM protests that start peacefully and become riots.

Derek Chauvin has been charged with murder and the other three are being charged as accessories for the George Floyd event.

Garrett Rolfe has been charged with capital murder and Devin Brosnan is charged with aggravated assault regarding the Atlanta event with the dangerous resisting criminal Brooks - granted, maybe that has more to do with happened after the shootings; we?ll have to see where the investigations lead.

Yet the burning and destruction, spurred on by BLM continues, nevertheless.

So who?s not being held accountable?

The BLM leaders who are trying to fallaciously paint black people as victims of a violent white hierarchy (that doesn?t exist), when in fact black people are much more definitely, in every measure possible, victims of crimes perpetrated amongst themselves, and the BLM leadership continues in this narrative for its own agenda, which has nothing to do with social justice or meaningful reform - that?s who.

If the tide is turning on accountability, then great, but these people being charged now is just a step towards accountability. And a relatively recent one.



If we were all expected to point our anger at the dominant causes of our misery, we'd probably mostly have to protest ourselves. But this idea that because you can find some worse statistic, that somehow invalidates a protest of anything with a lesser statistic is a feeling-driven argument. I understand why it feels valid. It isn't though.



If you add enough qualifiers to paint the position of people you disagree with ('violent white hierarchy') then sure, you sound reasonable criticizing the position you just made up. There's enough racial discrimination in practice that whether or not every protester describes it with academic rigor really shouldn't be the thing that pushes a person to one side or the other. There are certainly things you could quibble about with regard to what anger should be pointed at and how protests should be conducted. Focusing on that is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Spartanmack]

This point (which isn't just you - it's made all the time all over the place) won't have any relevance until the criminals you are implicitly referring to are state sanctioned with labor unions that shield them from accountability. Until then, this point is a bad point because it misses the point.

But that's not really happening is it and still we have protests, riots, looting, destruction of property, etc, etc. So I guess the opposition point is also a bad point because it has no point.

 

[Gulo Blue]

But that's not really happening is it and still we have protests, riots, looting, destruction of property, etc, etc. So I guess the opposition point is also a bad point because it has no point.

What do you mean?


Police are state sanctioned and have labor unions that shield them from accountability.


You don't think the labor unions shield them from accountability?

 

[tomdalton22]

Understood...but once you put in the quotas and money factor....you quickly realize that culture equates to more cops means more arrests, more targeting, and more unlawful stops in areas predominately of color. Hence BLM, racial targeting etc etc.

I believe more cops in areas that have high crime = more arrests, more people getting pulled over for minor traffic violations that turn into more serious charges.

I do believe that some cops are guilty of racial profiling...which is wrong.


As far as quotas, the large city near me gets around this pretty easily. They set up a cop with a radar gun and video camera on an overpass above the expressway. They hand out $120 speeding tickets to anyone going 10 MPH over the limit...regardless of ethnicity. I think they generated over $6M last year. It's total horseshit.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Alot of people are very quick to turn to those that have that opinion and say "your white so it doesnt really matter what you say" or quickly lump you into the racist category for having that opinion. In the case of Atlanta for example. Its safe to assume he would not have been shot if he was peacefully cuffed and placed in custody. Which proves the "dont do stupid shit and you wont get shot" and it can also be true that if you steal a non lethal weapon and flee you shouldnt be shot (i understand a lot of people have a harder time with that one...a feel he probably deserved to be shot). But the point is....both can be true.

In the eyes of Fulton County DA Paul Howard regarding the lethality or non-lethality of a taser, apparently both can be true also.

Seems that when police use a taser on a suspect the taser is lethal, but a multiple time convict violating his parole uses one against the police when resisting arrest - well, in that case, no big deal.

In that case we just charge the cop with a capital offense for, reasonably, defending his own life.

 

[Spartanmack]

a rational person would realize there are several truths...not just one.

Its ok to say "hey you know what...if you dont do something stupid....you wont get shot"...and people should be able to say that without getting attacked by the Woke mob.

Its also ok to say its not right for americans of any color to be targeted. Its simple fact that they are....i live in a community that has 80000 people and has 5 cops. neighborhoods of 80000 people that have a higher black/hispanic make up have like 5 - 6 times that number of police in their departments....atleast. Thats not racially biased systemically? All 25 of those officers have quotas to hit to BRING IN $$$. Not protect the public....to make MONEY!

There's really only one truth, these are just examples of inconsistencies and untruths, not multiple truths. For example, your last paragraph contains on massive claim that's simply not true. Those communities have 5-6x the police presence because that WAY higher violent crime rates, not because they have more minorities. It's not systemic bias, it's logic. Higher crime areas need more cops - many of those areas don't have enough police, even at 5-6x as many cops in your town.

 

[Spartanmack]

But who, relevant to the political discussion supports them? This is an absurd form of whaddaboudism. Since there's no valid political position to pull a 'what about' on, people just point to crime as the opposition? We've moved on from just fallacious arguments to a fallacious argument against a position nobody holds. Nobody supports black on black crime as a political position and what, if somebody did, that would that somehow impact whether or not police are held or not held accountable appropriately?

you may have a point about the union protecting them, but that's about it. Citizens, cops and politicians on both sides of the aisle want to get rid of bad cops. Other than the possible exception of the unions, you're talking about a fallacious argument for a position that many people hold.

 

[tinselwolverine]

If the tide is turning on accountability, then great, but these people being charged now is just a step towards accountability. And a relatively recent one.



If we were all expected to point our anger at the dominant causes of our misery, we'd probably mostly have to protest ourselves. But this idea that because you can find some worse statistic, that somehow invalidates a protest of anything with a lesser statistic is a feeling-driven argument. I understand why it feels valid. It isn't though.



If you add enough qualifiers to paint the position of people you disagree with ('violent white hierarchy') then sure, you sound reasonable criticizing the position you just made up. There's enough racial discrimination in practice that whether or not every protester describes it with academic rigor really shouldn't be the thing that pushes a person to one side or the other. There are certainly things you could quibble about with regard to what anger should be pointed at and how protests should be conducted. Focusing on that is missing the forest for the trees.

Just to be clear - are you saying I made up the notion of the violent white hierarchy?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CGVN5F_BQK0

 

[Spartanmack]

Alot of people are very quick to turn to those that have that opinion and say "your white so it doesnt really matter what you say" or quickly lump you into the racist category for having that opinion. In the case of Atlanta for example. Its safe to assume he would not have been shot if he was peacefully cuffed and placed in custody. Which proves the "dont do stupid shit and you wont get shot" and it can also be true that if you steal a non lethal weapon and flee you shouldnt be shot (i understand a lot of people have a harder time with that one...a feel he probably deserved to be shot). But the point is....both can be true.

what some people are actually having a hard time with is the idea that fleeing doesn't mean you're no longer a threat. Watch the video that PH posted - it cites the Georgia law re: use of force and it clearly states deadly force is still justified under circumstances like, if the officer believes he still poses a threat to them or the public.

 

[mhughes0021]

There's really only one truth, these are just examples of inconsistencies and untruths, not multiple truths. For example, your last paragraph contains on massive claim that's simply not true. Those communities have 5-6x the police presence because that WAY higher violent crime rates, not because they have more minorities. It's not systemic bias, it's logic. Higher crime areas need more cops - many of those areas don't have enough police, even at 5-6x as many cops in your town.

facts are facts. a city like mine will have no unlawful stops and lethal shootings. Place B will have several. Whats different? More crime isnt the reason theres more unlawful stops...they havent done anything wrong so they shouldnt be stopped! More cops and racial targeting tends to be the reason there is more unlawful stops.

And thats just the start of the conversation. Answering the question "Why is their more crime" in those areas presents a lot of other examples of social injustice.