Police Shootings (both by them and at them)

[Captain Steel]

Now that I'm back, I've held off commenting on these events until a little more was known about them.

(Too bad some of our "leaders" warn against rushing to judgement in certain cases when they think one of their pet PC agendas are involved, but then do exactly that when they believe race is involved... long before all the facts are in.)

In both the cases where men were shot by police (that preceded the ambush & massacre of police officers in Dallas), new information is coming forth... as it usually does.

People should always wait for all the facts to come in before jumping to conclusions - failing to do so leads to cases as in Ferguson where entire movements are formed around complete lies, which themselves end up with innocent people being murdered by dangerous individuals who buy into those lies. (Remember NYPD officers Ramos & Liu.)
Yet today, our President references the task forces he created that were built and predicated upon the great Ferguson lie, despite the fact that the lie was exposed and refuted.

[Camo]

I'm not one to usually get on at Obama. Not because i think he is a great president or anything, i just think sometimes he is blamed for things that have nothing to do with him, same with Bush and i imagine all presidents. He definitely deserves criticism for his comments after the two police shootings before the facts came out when he then says that we need the facts to come out on the Dallas shooting before rushing to judgment. Seriously make your mind up.

Anyway it is all really disgusting. RIP to everyone who died in these events (except the shooter of course, glad he was blown up), and i'm including the robot that deserved to live more than the POS it was used to blow up.

[Citizen Rules]

I don't have TV, so all I know is 2 black suspects were killed during police confrontations.

One of them was shot in the back by the police officer as he laid on the ground. Which to me sounded horrible. Then there were huge riots and protest.

Finally a black sniper killed 5 white police officers in Dallas. Before the sniper was killed he repeatedly said he wanted to kill white people and especially white officers.

As far as I know if the sniper had lived, he could not be charged with a 'hate crime' because according to US civil law a black person can not be racist against a white person and there forth can't be charge with a racially motivated hate crime.

[SilentVamp]

As far as I know if the sniper had lived, he could not be charged with a 'hate crime' because according to US civil law a black man can not be racist against a white and there forth can't be charge with a racial motivated hate crime.
Seriously? Where did you ever hear that?

[Citizen Rules]

Vamp, I heard that on another discussion board. I'm fairly sure it's accurate, that under civil liberties laws hate crime protection based on race doesn't extend to whites. If somebody has a definite answer about it, I would be glad to read it.

[seanc]

If you shoot somebody, the hate is implied.

[Camo]

One of them was shot in the back by the police officer as he laid on the ground. Which to me sounded horrible.

It was in the stomach he was lying on his back.

[Captain Steel]

I'm not one to usually get on at Obama. Not because i think he is a great president or anything, i just think sometimes he is blamed for things that have nothing to do with him, same with Bush and i imagine all presidents. He definitely deserves criticism for his comments after the two police shootings before the facts came out when he then says that we need the facts to come out on the Dallas shooting before rushing to judgment. Seriously make your mind up.

Anyway it is all really disgusting. RIP to everyone who died in these events (except the shooter of course, glad he was blown up), and i'm including the robot that deserved to live more than the POS it was used to blow up.

I agree with you, Camo. I was willing to give Obama a fair shake several years ago, but since then he has made this inconsistency of his personal racial & religious biases a pattern (he's advised restraint against rushing to judgment in cases that initially seem like Islamic terrorism - as well he should, yet he turns into Al Sharpton whenever he hears initial, unsubstantiated headlines or claims of "white" cop shoots black man).

Good news (based on one report I heard - which is also unsubstantiated)... but it said that the robot sent in to nullify Micah Johnson in Dallas may have dropped the bomb in Johnson's vicinity, then was turned around before the bomb was remotely detonated. So there's a good chance that "Robo-cop" is still intact and well.

[Camo]

I'm not sure about the first shooting. I'll wait until the facts come out on that. The second one just doesn't sound right at all though. I may be hypocritical since i'm kind of rushing to judgement, i'd be happy to be corrected on anything. The guy sounded like he was nervous that he might be shot, he disclosed right away that he had a gun in the car and that he had a license to carry it. Then he was asked for his license and registration and when he went for his wallet he was shot four times. Also if the girlfriend is believed none of the officers tried to administer cpr or anything, they instead left him there until the ambulance came to console the officer who shot him. If i have anything wrong there correct me please.

[cricket]

There's more whites and Hispanics killed by police than blacks killed by police.

A police officer is way more likely to be killed by a black man than the other way around.

Black lives matter, of course, but everyone else's life matters just as much.

[cricket]

I'm not sure about the first shooting. I'll wait until the facts come out on that. The second one just doesn't sound right at all though. I may be hypocritical since i'm kind of rushing to judgement, i'd be happy to be corrected on anything. The guy sounded like he was nervous that he might be shot, he disclosed right away that he had a gun in the car and that he had a license to carry it. Then he was asked for his license and registration and when he went for his wallet he was shot four times. Also if the girlfriend is believed none of the officers tried to administer cpr or anything, they instead left him there until the ambulance came to console the officer who shot him. If i have anything wrong there correct me please.

The girlfriend has said that her BF told the officer he had a gun, and reached for his wallet in his back pocket. Just think about that. A terrible tragedy though.

I think there should be some sort of education in order to get a driver's license on how to act when being pulled over. Anyone being pulled over should turn their vehicle off, put their hands on the dash, shut up and wait for instructions.

[Camo]

Vamp, I heard that on another discussion board. I'm fairly sure it's accurate, that under civil liberties laws hate crime protection based on race doesn't extend to whites. If somebody has a definite answer about it, I would be glad to read it.

Just looked this up. Here is a case of a black person being charged with a hate crime for attacking a white person - https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/can-you-commit-a-hate-crime-against-a-white-person

As defined by the state of New York, a hate crime occurs when a person

"intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct."

Under this definition, a member of a minority group can commit a hate crime against a member of a privileged group. Indeed, the landmark case that set a precedent for hate crime laws as being not in opposition to free speech involved a group of young black Wisconsin teenagers who—after watching Mississippi Burning, a 1988 film about a hate crime committed against black Civil Rights activists—assaulted a 14-year-old white boy in 1989. Before the act took place, one of the boys, Todd Mitchell, turned to his friends and asked, "Do you feel all hyped up to move on some white people?''

[Citizen Rules]

OK, I could be wrong, I swear there once a huge debate about equally administration of civil liberties laws. Maybe it varies by state?

[SilentVamp]

You want to know what bothered me about the shooting that involved the girlfriend? The fact that she just saw him get shot for, apparently, no reason, and yet she managed to pull out her phone and started filming everything. My God! If I were in that situation, I would've been hysterical, and the LAST thing on my mind would be to pull out my cell phone and start filming the death of my boyfriend. And, not only that, she is remarkably calm during most of it. The officer is the one who is so upset. He almost sounds like he is crying. And I just think it is amazing that Spike Lee called her a "hero" for filming it. I thought it was a horrible thing to do. And then it is up on Youtube right away? What the hell??? My mind wouldn't even be anywhere near where hers obviously was!

The only person I honestly, really felt bad for was the man who got shot. He is DYING. You see it happen.

[Camo]

The girlfriend has said that her BF told the officer he had a gun, and reached for his wallet in his back pocket. Just think about that. A terrible tragedy though.

I think there should be some sort of education in order to get a driver's license on how to act when being pulled over. Anyone being pulled over should turn their vehicle off, put their hands on the dash, shut up and wait for instructions.

Actually he was shot when putting his hands up:

The girlfriend said on the video that the officer “asked him for license and registration. He told him that it was in his wallet, but he had a pistol on him because he’s licensed to carry. The officer said don’t move. As he was putting his hands back up, the officer shot him in the arm four or five times.”

The video shows a uniformed police officer holding a pistol on the couple from outside the car. The officer can be heard to say, “I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out.”

http://www.startribune.com/aftermath-of-officer-involved-shooting-captured-on-phone-video/385789251/


Again i'll wait for the facts to come out because she may be mistaken or lying.

[SilentVamp]

Under this definition, a member of a minority group can commit a hate crime against a member of a privileged group.
"Privileged" is an interesting word because there are how many white people, myself included, that aren't even remotely privileged.

Indeed, the landmark case that set a precedent for hate crime laws as being not in opposition to free speech involved a group of young black Wisconsin teenagers who—after watching Mississippi Burning, a 1988 film about a hate crime committed against black Civil Rights activists—assaulted a 14-year-old white boy in 1989. Before the act took place, one of the boys, Todd Mitchell, turned to his friends and asked, "Do you feel all hyped up to move on some white people?''
So, this happened in Wisconsin, huh? I honestly don't even remember hearing about it. I am going to ask if anyone I know remembers it happening. I am just curious now.

[ashdoc]

the politically correct people usually blame white people for racism . is also true in many cases .

but my indian friends who have migrated to US tell me that they are afraid to go to all black areas , especially after dark . they tell stories that are boringly repetitive---of being hit on the head from behind ( more likely ) or front and waking to find himself / herself robbed and bleeding . however one US citizen of indian origin ( a girl in her twenties ) was gang raped along with her white female friend when she ran out of fuel for her car and went to a black area for fuel . she and her friend were held captive for few hours and made to dance naked in front of a gang of black men before being raped .

[cricket]

Actually he was shot when putting his hands up:

The girlfriend said on the video that the officer “asked him for license and registration. He told him that it was in his wallet, but he had a pistol on him because he’s licensed to carry. The officer said don’t move. As he was putting his hands back up, the officer shot him in the arm four or five times.”

The video shows a uniformed police officer holding a pistol on the couple from outside the car. The officer can be heard to say, “I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out.”

http://www.startribune.com/aftermath-of-officer-involved-shooting-captured-on-phone-video/385789251/


Again i'll wait for the facts to come out because she may be mistaken or lying.

She has given conflicting accounts, but this is the one I'm talking about, and the one that will get the officer off-

https://youtu.be/Fg1hT8JCGHI

[Camo]

She has given conflicting accounts, but this is the one I'm talking about, and the one that will get the officer off-


Yeah, fair enough i hadn't seen that. I wonder which statement she made first. Also were the cops wearing bodycams? I know the ones in the first shooting were.

[Captain Steel]

I'm not sure about the first shooting. I'll wait until the facts come out on that. The second one just doesn't sound right at all though. I may be hypocritical since i'm kind of rushing to judgement, i'd be happy to be corrected on anything. The guy sounded like he was nervous that he might be shot, he disclosed right away that he had a gun in the car and that he had a license to carry it. Then he was asked for his license and registration and when he went for his wallet he was shot four times. Also if the girlfriend is believed none of the officers tried to administer cpr or anything, they instead left him there until the ambulance came to console the officer who shot him. If i have anything wrong there correct me please.

New info on this case is what prompted this thread.

First, (and this is just based on my gut impression, but) I just feel there's something not right about the girlfriend's relatively calm behavior that almost takes on the aspects of performing for a camera. I know everyone deals with trauma differently, but it's just odd that her reaction to her boyfriend dying beside her is to make a Facebook video, while both her comments and demeanor on the video seem odd for such an extreme situation. In her press conferences afterward she sounds more like someone giving a performance than someone who's just suffered such an extreme trauma. I couldn't help but feel that Diamond "Lavish" Reynolds was really getting off on her sudden fame & attention. Again - this is all just my initial feeling.
Whatever the ultimate facts, the video (and the fact that it involved a child) is still disturbing & heartbreaking.

Second - new facts: there was no broken tail light on the car. The cop (Geronimo Yanez) stopped the car because the driver (Philando Castile) fit the description of the suspect in an armed robbery that occurred the day before - there's dispatch audio substantiating this.
The cop is Latino and is not an "Asian" as Ms. Reynold's states in her video. Ms. Reynold's video begins after shots were fired, so there is no record about what precipitated the shooting except the witnesses' claims. She also states in her video that they had "weed" in the car.

Also - there is new video by witnesses that shows cops beginning CPR on Castile at the scene before ambulances arrived.


Many are speculating, based on the video, that the gun was in Castile's lap or tucked into his pants at the time he was pulled over and the cop ordered him not to touch it (the cop is heard in the video screaming that he told Castile not to touch the gun). But, perhaps, when Castile went to get his wallet he had to grab the gun to keep it from sliding. Again, this last part is all speculation based on various people's analysis of the video. Why someone with a carry permit would be driving around with their gun on their lap or down their pants doesn't make much sense.

[cricket]

Yeah, fair enough i hadn't seen that. I wonder which statement she made first. Also were the cops wearing bodycams? I know the ones in the first shooting were.

That would be the ultimate evidence.

One thing about this case that bothers me is that the police forced the GF out of the car and on the ground at gunpoint. Why would they do that if the only violence came from the officer?

[Camo]

First, (and this is just based on my gut impression, but) I just feel there's something not right about the girlfriend's relatively calm behavior that almost takes on the aspects of performing for a camera. I know everyone deals with trauma differently, but it's just odd that her reaction to her boyfriend dying beside her is to make a Facebook video, while both her comments and demeanor on the video seem odd for such an extreme situation. In her press conferences afterward she sounds more like someone giving a performance than someone who's just suffered such an extreme trauma. I couldn't help but feel that Diamond "Lavish" Reynolds was really getting off on her sudden fame & attention. Again - this is all just my initial feeling.
Whatever the ultimate facts, the video (and the fact that it involved a child) is still disturbing & heartbreaking.

That may all be true but i don't think it is relevant to what happened.

Ms. Reynold's video begins after shots were fired, so there is no record about what precipitated the shooting except the witnesses' claims. She also states in her video that they had "weed" in the car.

Do you know if the cops had bodycams? That would clear all of this up. I know the ones in the first shooting had bodycams.

To the rest i'm not really interested in speculation mostly because so much of it was ridiculously wrong with Ferguson, only interested in the facts. Thanks for the update :up:

[Camo]

One thing about this case that bothers me is that the police forced the GF out of the car and on the ground at gunpoint. Why would they do that if the only violence came from the officer?

Just to make sure i guess. For all they know she had a gun. I don't know.

[Citizen Rules]

new facts: there was no broken tail light on the car. The cop stopped the car because the driver fit the description of the suspect in an armed robbery that occurred the day before - there's dispatch audio substantiating this.

Ms. Reynold's video begins after shots were fired, so there is no record about what precipitated the shooting except the witnesses' claims.

Many are speculating, based on the video, that the gun was in Castile's lap or tucked into his pants at the time he was pulled over and the cop ordered him not to touch it (the cop is heard in the video screaming that he told Castile not to touch the gun). Thanks for posting that. That to me changes my mind and makes it seem like the shooting was an understandable but tragic accident that came about due to circumstances.

BTW I misspoke about the civil liberties law. I remember the discussion was about 'polar bear hunting' a 'game' where black youths seek out elderly white people and hit them in the head as hard as they can, so as to knock them out. The discussion was why wasn't this considered a hate crime. But apparently very few 'polar bear hunters' have been charged with racially motivated hate crimes.

[cricket]

Just to make sure i guess. For all they know she had a gun. I don't know.

Yea, I guess with a gun being said to be in the car mixed with the chaos of the scene.

[Camo]

Thanks for posting that. That to me changes my mind and makes it seem like the shooting was an understandable but tragic accident that came about due to circumstances.

What does the speculation? None of that was fact , Captain said that people are speculating. Not sure why that would change your mind either way.

[Captain Steel]

This link contains some of the new evidence in the MN shooting, including info about the car, video of cops administering first aid to the victim and the police scanner audio...
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/07/09/mn-officer-involved-shooting-investigation-uncovers-explosive-evidence/

[Citizen Rules]

I took it that part of what Captain said was fact: The part that he was a robbery suspect, the part where the cops scream don't touch the gun. Captain were those facts or speculation.

[Camo]

I took it that part of what Captain said was fact: The part that he was a robbery suspect, the part where the cops scream don't touch the gun. Captain were those facts or speculation.

Right, sorry i thought you were talking about the speculaltion part because you quoted it. Fair enough.

[Camo]

He also didn't have a permit to carry -

However, the county people first believed to have issued Castile’s concealed carry permit did confirm their office did not issue his CCP:

Mr. Castile never applied for a permit to carry with our office. Therefore we did not issue his permit.

The picture of the black thing looks more like his seatbelt to me than a gun tbh. I may be wrong though.

[cricket]

If the tail light wasn't broken, I'm wondering if that's better or worse for the officer. If it wasn't and the victim resembled a suspect, of course the officer would be more on edge. On the other hand, there may not have been cause to legally pull him over in the first place.

[Citizen Rules]

The media causes a lot of problems by hyping these stories, spinning them to look like white vigilant cops killing black people, all for the sake of getting ratings...Then latter we learn a lot of what was initially reported was wrong as we start to see how the situation could have turned deadly, without any malice from the cops.

That's an opinion and here's two more:

I think the media in the US is crap, and I think our President is prejudice, He's made that clear himself by his words and actions.
BTW I voted for Obama both times and I consider myself a liberal.

[Captain Steel]

I took it that part of what Captain said was fact: The part that he was a robbery suspect, the part where the cops scream don't touch the gun. Captain were those facts or speculation.

Yes. I took it that you were swayed by those things that are now purported to be facts.
I tried, in my post, to differentiate between my personal impressions, facts and speculations of others.

(And to Camo - yes, I realize my impressions are not relevant in any legal sense, but since this is a forum where we can express opinions & impressions, I'm just giving mine. I sometimes like to do this online as a record because I seem to have a tendency to end up being right when it comes to my impressions.) ;)

Another impression (based on new evidence purported to be facts) - it seems parts of Ms. Reynolds story are unraveling, or at best are contradictory:

We're not sure about the cop's statement about the tail light - he may have indeed told her that as a ruse (since he was actually pulling them over as armed robbery suspects).

Her claim that the cops just left Castile's body in the car to die appears to be false - it seems after back up arrived, they started to perform CPR (based on witness video).

Her claim that Castile had a carry permit may have been false (or perhaps a mistaken assumption on her part?)

The point is that as more parts of her story become questionable, the more her overall credibility comes into question as to what actually transpired.

[cricket]

Everything I'm seeing says that he did have a proper permit to carry.

[Friendly Mushroom!]

http://i.imgur.com/Lsby8YJ.png

[Sexy Celebrity]

I think there should be some sort of education in order to get a driver's license on how to act when being pulled over. Anyone being pulled over should turn their vehicle off, put their hands on the dash, shut up and wait for instructions.

........... You know, I disagree. About the whole "education" thing. While that might not be a bad idea, though......... but cops, from what I am seeing..... are WAY too trigger happy. Way too trigger happy. And they are shooting at innocent people (even animals in some situations) in many kinds of situations, not just people getting pulled over. It seems like they are just too quick to turn to shooting as an answer. "To protect themselves."

I don't think every cop is a bad cop, but I think that cops, in general, are definitely giving themselves a deserved bad rap based on what I've seen and heard. I'm absolutely disgusted by all the stories I've heard of (and seen video of) -- of cops getting out of control and taking action they didn't need to take.

[cricket]

But what you've seen is the bad or possibly bad, because that's what makes headlines. Most of the good goes unnoticed.

If I were to get pulled over, I could easily get into a bad exchange. It's much easier not to have a problem though, just fully comply.

[Sexy Celebrity]

But what you've seen is the bad or possibly bad, because that's what makes headlines. Most of the good goes unnoticed.

If I were to get pulled over, I could easily get into a bad exchange. It's much easier not to have a problem though, just fully comply.

Won't always save ya. If you're unlucky enough to get with the wrong cop, you might end up dead. You just never know. I highly doubt a lot of these victims thought they'd end up dead because a cop showed up.

I don't care about the "headlines" aspect. I care about what I've seen and heard. I just saw the video of the woman who filmed her dead boyfriend in the car. You know what? I don't care about how calm she was. Some people are just calm in strange situations. You never know how you might truly react. She breaks down crying at one point and I felt it was genuine. She could have been in shock. Maybe she really didn't want the cop to just get away with what he had done. Kudos to her for filming it, I say.

[cricket]

I feel horrible for her and her deceased BF, but if it went down like she said in the video I posted (he said he had a gun and reached for his back pocket), then he was killed by stupidity. Anybody does that and it's all over.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I feel horrible for her and her deceased BF, but if it went down like she said in the video I posted (he said he had a gun and reached for his back pocket), then he was killed by stupidity. Anybody does that and it's all over.

I don't know. I did not see how it actually played out. But I have seen videos of cops shooting people where I thought, "They so didn't have to just shoot that person like that....." I heard stories of cops coming to houses and shooting totally innocent people just for being in the way.

I still think a bunch of these cops are just trigger happy. Do something besides killing the suspect. Shoot them once somewhere they won't die. How dumb that someone reaches for their back pocket and their death is "okay" because they're "stupid" for not doing something right. If this was your wife, you would not be going, "She had it comin', that dumb bitch!" This is why people are pissed off. If it's not you or your loved ones getting killed by the police, you don't care, 'cause you see these strangers as just dumb.

[Captain Steel]

The last time I was pulled over by a cop I kept my hands on the wheel. At one point I told him my registration was in the central glove compartment and I'd have to go in there to get it. I waited with my hands on the wheel until he said, "go ahead, get it."

He was in standard position - not in my window, but slightly behind my driver's side door, with his flashlight pointing in over my left shoulder. He did everything to ensure his safety and I announced all my actions and awaited his permission to ensure mine.

P.S. I was pulled over for averting the manhole covers in a certain area of road (which anyone who drives on that road knows about) because hitting them in my old car is like hitting the curb. When I explained my swerving in that one area, the cop confirmed that I was not driving that way due to intoxication and let me go on my way.

[Sexy Celebrity]

People should not have to worry that when a cop pulls them over, they need to be deathly scared and act like how Captain Steel acted or else they could get shot and killed. Just the fact that people fear cops and act that way around them -- sickens me.

[Captain Steel]

People should not have to worry that when a cop pulls them over, they need to be deathly scared and act like how Captain Steel acted or else they could get shot and killed. Just the fact that people fear cops and act that way around them -- sickens me.

This is true, but at the same time you have to consider the world we now live in and realize that these people never know what they're coming up against or what the person they've pulled over is liable to do.

Best advice: don't be scared, be calm, be alert, listen to instructions, be polite, and comply with what you're asked to do. Above all don't allow emotions to overtake you even if you feel you're being stopped without reason or delayed without good cause.

[Captain Steel]

People should not have to worry that when a cop pulls them over, they need to be deathly scared and act like how Captain Steel acted or else they could get shot and killed. Just the fact that people fear cops and act that way around them -- sickens me.

Also, I didn't act in any way that was abnormal or fearful. I wasn't "scared" at all because I knew I hadn't broken any laws (wasn't speeding, hadn't been drinking and I understood exactly why I was pulled over - which was part of the conversation).
Out of common sense I simply announced that my registration was in the center glove compartment and I'd need to open it to reach in and get it - rather than just suddenly reaching into a dark area of my car in the presence of someone with a gun who may not know what it is I'm reaching for.

[Guaporense]

There's more whites and Hispanics killed by police than blacks killed by police.

A police officer is way more likely to be killed by a black man than the other way around.

Black lives matter, of course, but everyone else's life matters just as much.

Well, there is some correlation with being black and being shoot by the police:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ecf211e4b0ed744420c5b6/t/569534449cadb69b288bedee/1452618828280/2015policekillingsunarmed.jpeg?format=750w

Although I wouldn't agree that terrorism is the right way to respond to that.

[Captain Steel]

There's a lot of controversy over the BLM movement right now.
Some members are vehemently denouncing the cop-killing shooter in Dallas, some others are praising him (and some, if not openly praising, are saying things like "something like this was bound to happen sooner or later" or "it's about time".)

So what's your opinion? Is BLM simply a civil rights activist group or a racist domestic-terrorist group?

[Camo]

There's a lot of controversy over the BLM movement right now.
Some members are vehemently denouncing the cop-killing shooter in Dallas, some others are praising him (and some, if not openly praising, are saying things like "something like this was bound to happen sooner or later" or "it's about time".)

So what's your opinion? Is BLM simply a civil rights activist group or a racist domestic-terrorist group?

Racist domestic-terrorist without a doubt they are actively trying to incite violence against white people/ white officers. Their fry them like bacon chant alone is enough for me.

Could you please post your sources with the bolded statements? Even with any other statement to do with this or not, you should always post where you are reading/hearing this. I always make sure to show where i am getting my information so everyone can judge its validity themselves.

[Captain Steel]

Racist domestic-terrorist without a doubt they are actively trying to incite violence against white people/ white officers. Their fry them like bacon chant alone is enough for me.

Could you please post your sources with the bolded statements? Even with any other statement to do with this or not, you should always post where you are reading/hearing this. I always make sure to show where i am getting my information so everyone can judge its validity themselves.

Understood Camo - unfortunately my sources at this point are varied: everything from radio programs to TV news to people leaving comments on YouTube videos. So, I don't have any "official" sources to reference other than what I've heard (from both people claiming to represent BLM and people not in the group). Point is; it's currently a very controversial topic about a very controversial group.

As you know, BLM is not a highly structured organization - I don't know what qualifies membership other than saying you're a member or that you support the group.

This is why some people can say that shooter Micah Johnson was not a member and had absolutely no association with BLM, while others can say he was a "member" simply because he was black and referenced the group, and others can say he was only a supporter because he expressed support for the cause of the group.

[Shadow]

Very sad about the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philandro Castile but also the Dallas officers, my sympathies to all of them at this time. I just wish the violence and hate would end.

[Camo]

unfortunately my sources at this point are varied: everything from radio programs to TV news to people leaving comments on YouTube videos. So, I don't have any "official" sources to reference other than what I've heard (from both people claiming to represent BLM and people not in the group). Point is; it's currently a very controversial topic about a very controversial group.

Those are awful, almost non sources as i'm sure you know. Thanks for telling me anyway.

This is why some people can say that shooter Micah Johnson was not a member and had absolutely no association with BLM, while others can say he was a "member" simply because he was black and referenced the group, and others can say he was only a supporter because he expressed support for the cause of the group.

Well he expressed anger at BLM as well so it clearly wasn't for BLM as much as some are desperate for it to be.

[Captain Steel]

Those are awful, almost non sources as i'm sure you know. Thanks for telling me anyway.



Well he expressed anger at BLM as well so it clearly wasn't for BLM as much as some are desperate for it to be.

On that, I'd like some sources. I took it that when the Dallas Police Chief said that Johnson was "upset" over BLM, he didn't mean that the shooter was upset AT the group, but was upset over the same recent incidents that were driving the BLM protests. But I could be wrong as the chief's wording made the statement somewhat unclear.

P.S. As far as sources, most of the afternoon conservative talk radio crowd (you know who they are) have brought up the same question of BLM being a terrorist organization and have quoted people from within the group who both condemn and support the Dallas murders.

[earlsmoviepicks]

One thing is fueling the other, it's a shame--

[seanc]

One thing is fueling the other, it's a shame--

That's the most insightful post in the thread. Nobody that matters seems willing to say that though. Many of our issues right now can be boiled down to that.

[John McClane]

I have a firm opinion on police officers: it is their job to stay calm and collected throughout ALL interactions. It is their job to put themselves in dangerous situations that may result in their death. If they are uncomfortable with this then they should go flip burgers or do construction.

[seanc]

I have a firm opinion on police officers: it is their job to stay calm and collected throughout ALL interactions. It is their job to put themselves in dangerous situations that may result in their death. If they are uncomfortable with this then they should go flip burgers or do construction.

Should they not be allowed to carry firearms? Is it ever okay for them to engage if the situation is unsafe?

Calm and ALL are pretty relative terms, even with capslock on.

[John McClane]

Should they not be allowed to carry firearms? Is it ever okay for them to engage if the situation is unsafe?

Calm and ALL are pretty relative terms, even with capslock on.Cops should be armed and should be allowed to use force as a final deterrent against an individual that is a threat.

But I can't get on board with "I was afraid for my life." OK, then why the hell did you become a police officer?

[seanc]

Cops should be armed and should be allowed to use force as a final deterrent against an individual that is a threat.

But I can't get on board with "I was afraid for my life." OK, then why the hell did you become a police officer?

I appreciate what you're saying but most of these situations have confrontation and are not very cut and dry. The police should be the calming presence but they need to be allowed to use force if they feel their life or others is in danger.

[Citizen Rules]

I favor body cameras on all cops, to protect the cops and suspects too, against false charges. It looks like Seattle is just about to do that.

This might be reverse racism but: there needs to be more black cops. Ideally in communities with a large black population percentage, each squad car would have 1 black officer and the black officer could take the lead in questioning black suspects. Right now a lot of black Americans feel the cops are the enemy, that's not a good situation.

[cricket]

I favor body cameras on all cops, to protect the cops and suspects too, against false charges. It looks like Seattle is just about to do that.

This might be reverse racism but: there needs to be more black cops. Ideally in communities with a large black population percentage, each squad car would have 1 black officer and the black officer could take the lead in questioning black suspects. Right now a lot of black Americans feel the cops are the enemy, that's not a good situation.

Right on the money.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I have a firm opinion on police officers: it is their job to stay calm and collected throughout ALL interactions. It is their job to put themselves in dangerous situations that may result in their death. If they are uncomfortable with this then they should go flip burgers or do construction.

I agree. If you wanna be a cop, you gotta be willing to die. It's a risky business. Now cops should absolutely protect their lives, but they also shouldn't be quick to killing other people's lives just to save their own. Especially if they don't really need to be killing those people.

[TONGO]

I favor body cameras on all cops, to protect the cops and suspects too, against false charges. It looks like Seattle is just about to do that.

This might be reverse racism but: there needs to be more black cops. Ideally in communities with a large black population percentage, each squad car would have 1 black officer and the black officer could take the lead in questioning black suspects. Right now a lot of black Americans feel the cops are the enemy, that's not a good situation.

Agreed 100%.

[honeykid]

I can't remember the name of this documentary about US police coming over to Scotland to learn about different ways of dealing with threats, but I think it was shown earlier this year. If you can find the whole thing, it's pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8qa5Wk_f7U

[Sexy Celebrity]

It isn't even just criminals getting killed by the cops over here in the US. If you're a mentally ill person and someone calls the cops on you and they come to your house, you could get shot and killed easily just because they don't know how else to deal with you. I hear it all the time -- people warn others, "DO NOT call the police if someone you love is having a problem of some kind." The police will kill you.

[cricket]

It isn't even just criminals getting killed by the cops over here in the US. If you're a mentally ill person and someone calls the cops on you and they come to your house, you could get shot and killed easily just because they don't know how else to deal with you. I hear it all the time -- people warn others, "DO NOT call the police if someone you love is having a problem of some kind." The police will kill you.

That's probably the first point in this issue I agree with you on. There has to be a better way for them to deal with the mentally ill.

[Sexy Celebrity]

That's probably the first point in this issue I agree with you on. There has to be a better way for them to deal with the mentally ill.

Well, if the mentally ill are getting mistreated by the police, don't you think other people are, too?

[cricket]

Well, if the mentally ill are getting mistreated by the police, don't you think other people are, too?

I think they may sometimes have trouble understanding situations.

[SilentVamp]

This might be reverse racism but: there needs to be more black cops. Ideally in communities with a large black population percentage, each squad car would have 1 black officer and the black officer could take the lead in questioning black suspects. Right now a lot of black Americans feel the cops are the enemy, that's not a good situation.
And this is really going to solve something?

Let me tell you this. I live in a city with a very large black population. And there are more than enough black officers on the police force. Adding more isn't going to help it any. It may even hurt. Where my mother once worked, there were a lot of officers who used to come and hang out at that restaurant on their breaks. And I know for a fact that black police officers hated black suspects. If you think white officers dislike them, black officers hated them. And if a call came for the police to go searching for someone, those black officers would jump up so fast as soon as they heard it was a black suspect so they could have the pleasure of catching that person. As for everyday citizens, all the people I have known who have ever talked about something like this (and I have known a majority of black people - I think the internet has actually been my first experience with a majority of non-black people that I have dealt with) have always said that they distrust black officers MORE than white officers. So, I can't say that it would make a better situation if the black officers were always automatically taking the lead, or are always the automatic partner of a white officer.

Our county has a black sheriff. He hates the Black Lives Matter movement. He thinks it is absurd. Don't believe me? Read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/11/sheriff-david-clarke-its-time-to-stand-up-to-black-lives-matter.html
And he's a Democrat saying this. So, I guess not all so-called liberals feel the same way.

Anyway, if you get more people who feel like Sheriff Clarke out there, do you think it would help people or hurt them?

[Citizen Rules]

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1544808#post1544808)
This might be reverse racism but: there needs to be more black cops. Ideally in communities with a large black population percentage, each squad car would have 1 black officer and the black officer could take the lead in questioning black suspects. Right now a lot of black Americans feel the cops are the enemy, that's not a good situation.


And this is really going to solve something?

Let me tell you this. I live in a city with a very large black population. And there are more than enough black officers on the police force. Adding more isn't going to help it any. It may even hurt. Where my mother once worked, there were a lot of officers who used to come and hang out at that restaurant on their breaks. And I know for a fact that black police officers hated black suspects. If you think white officers dislike them, black officers hated them. And if a call came for the police to go searching for someone, those black officers would jump up so fast as soon as they heard it was a black suspect so they could have the pleasure of catching that person. As for everyday citizens, all the people I have known who have ever talked about something like this (and I have known a majority of black people - I think the internet has actually been my first experience with a majority of non-black people that I have dealt with) have always said that they distrust black officers MORE than white officers. So, I can't say that it would make a better situation if the black officers were always automatically taking the lead, or are always the automatic partner of a white officer.

Our county has a black sheriff. He hates the Black Lives Matter movement. He thinks it is absurd. Don't believe me? Read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/11/sheriff-david-clarke-its-time-to-stand-up-to-black-lives-matter.html
And he's a Democrat saying this. So, I guess not all so-called liberals feel the same way.

Anyway, if you get more people who feel like Sheriff Clarke out there, do you think it would help people or hurt them? I believe what you're saying. My reason for having more black cops, wasn't because I think white cops hate black suspects and so the black cops will treat them fairer. My thinking is if a black suspect gets killed by a cop, there will be less black riots if the cop is also black. That was my reason, and not that white cops are unfair or anything like that.

[Captain Steel]

I believe what you're saying, my reason for having more black cops, wasn't because I think white cops hate black suspects and so the black cops will treat them fairer. My thinking is if a black suspect gets shoot by a cop, there will be less black riots if the cop is black. That was my reason, and not that white cops are unfair or anything like that.

i.e. Greater diversity among police = less claims of race-biased police brutality.
(There may still be police brutality, but less justification for race-based groups like BLM.)

[Sexy Celebrity]

SilentVamp's post about black policemen totally made me think about:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26251&stc=1&d=1468286433

[SilentVamp]

I believe what you're saying. My reason for having more black cops, wasn't because I think white cops hate black suspects and so the black cops will treat them fairer. My thinking is if a black suspect gets killed by a cop, there will be less black riots if the cop is also black. That was my reason, and not that white cops are unfair or anything like that.
I completely understand what you are saying, but that makes me think of something that I heard awhile ago. Was it in Boston (I don't know why I think it was there) where that man died in police custody where multiple officers were involved? And I think one of the officers was a woman. I'm really not sure anymore. Anyway, this happened after a couple of those shootings that were done by white cops. And people were on TV talking about these shootings and saying they were a "black and white issue". That is all people were complaining about UNTIL that death with the multiple officers. You see, that death involved officers of various races, including black. Suddenly people were on TV now saying "it isn't a black and white issue. It is a black and blue issue". So, I don't know if there would be any less protests, or anything of the sort, if there were more black officers. I think there would still be all of this just the same. I really do.

[Citizen Rules]

So, I don't know if there would be any less protests, or anything of the sort, if there were more black officers. I think there would still be all of this just the same. I really do. I don't know either...but I hate it when the media spins these stories out of control making it sound like white cops are out to kill black people. That is just not true. And yet a number of black Americans, believe it to be true.

Even the president plays into this when he said white people don't understand how black Americans view things. I wish our president had enough guts to stop fueling the fire by drawing lines in the sand and perpetrating racial paranoia by always making it a black white issue.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Nobody is black or white. Are you your skin? I have teeth. But I do not define myself as "teeth." If I did, and I lost all of my teeth, what would I be? All of us have the same white skeletons inside of us and the same red blood. Stop defining people by the color of their skin. It's alright to be proud of your white or black skin, it's even alright to call yourself a "white person" or a "black person" sometimes if you must, but the reality is -- nobody's "white." Nobody's "black." We're all humans.

[Citizen Rules]

I wish you could convince BLM of that. See I like HLM...Happy Lives Mater:)

[Sexy Celebrity]

Black Lives Matter has a point -- black lives do matter. Stop being so damn trigger happy or whatever around people with black skin -- or any skin color. Stop being so quick to kill people!!!! I don't know much about Black Lives Matter, but I'm not quick to totally condemn them. It's good that people want to take a stand. How they handle that stand is a different matter.

[SilentVamp]

Nobody is black or white. Are you your skin? I have teeth. But I do not define myself as "teeth." If I did, and I lost all of my teeth, what would I be? All of us have the same white skeletons inside of us and the same red blood. Stop defining people by the color of their skin. It's alright to be proud of your white or black skin, it's even alright to call yourself a "white person" or a "black person" sometimes if you must, but the reality is -- nobody's "white." Nobody's "black." We're all humans.
I've said for years that I wish people would just be people. I don't go around labeling unless there is a specific reason for it in a discussion. Otherwise, I seriously couldn't care less what color somebody is. :shrug:

[Captain Steel]

Nobody is black or white. Are you your skin? I have teeth. But I do not define myself as "teeth." If I did, and I lost all of my teeth, what would I be? All of us have the same white skeletons inside of us and the same red blood. Stop defining people by the color of their skin. It's alright to be proud of your white or black skin, it's even alright to call yourself a "white person" or a "black person" sometimes if you must, but the reality is -- nobody's "white." Nobody's "black." We're all humans.

I understand the spirit of what you're saying, Sexy.

But a while back there was an actual movement to say that, scientifically & biologically, races didn't exist. This was an agenda-driven movement to try to redefine reality when it came to biologic fact. The intention may have been good, but we know where roads paved with good intentions lead to (especially if they involve denying reality).

It's fine to raise our perceptions of connectedness to the level of our shared species, but to deny the reality that races exist, (and depending on geography, have associated cultures,) is a form of denial. And if taken seriously as some people wanted it to be, it would really suck for the treatment of ethnic & racial-specific diseases such as sickle cell anemia.

[Omnizoa]

Nobody is black or white.
This.

We're all different shades of tan, or in my case you're green and wildly unrepresented in the media.

[seanc]

Abraham Lincoln once said, "if you are racist I will attack you with the north". Those are the values I take with me everyday.

[Omnizoa]

But a while back there was an actual movement to say that, scientifically & biologically, races didn't exist.
Those races mean very little with a history of interbreeding or when the term "racism" is casually used in place of "ethnicism".

It's not exactly racist to say "Those damn Finns, always getting drunk in sub-zero temperatures."

There's a problem with our use of the word in general.

[Citizen Rules]

It's a nice thought Omni, but it's like spittin' into the wind and just won't work.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I understand the spirit of what you're saying, Sexy.

But a while back there was an actual movement to say that, scientifically & biologically, races didn't exist. This was an agenda-driven movement to try to redefine reality when it came to biologic fact. The intention may have been good, but we know where roads paved with good intentions lead to (especially if they involve denying reality).

It's fine to raise our perceptions of connectedness to the level of our shared species, but to deny the reality that races exist, (and depending on geography, have associated cultures,) is a form of denial. And if taken seriously as some people wanted it to be, it would really suck for the treatment of ethnic & racial-specific diseases such as sickle cell anemia.

*nods* I agree. Race exists. Just as I feel male and female exists. There's differences biologically, for sure.

But we don't have to act like the color of our skin should determine our whole lives. We don't have to act like, "I'm BLACK!" or "I'm WHITE!" everywhere we go. Yes, biologically, we must be something over something else, but BASICALLY, it's just skin color.

I am not Sexy Celebrity, a big walking, talking pile of white skin slithering around everywhere. I am BURDENED with my white skin. I am burdened with my white biological makeup. It's attached to me and not going anywhere. But I don't have to be RUBBING my whiteness around everywhere. I'm not trying to whiten up every room I go in. Every thing I touch does not turn white. I am not a white disease.

[SilentVamp]

Abraham Lincoln once said, "if you are racist I will attack you with the north". Those are the values I take with me everyday.
Thank you for making smile today, Mr. Scott.
:D

[Omnizoa]

It's a nice thought Omni, but it's like spittin' into the wind and just won't work.
De-segregation is the key and we'll continue to divide ourselves unintentionally unless we correct our dialog. Here, have someone with a lovely voice tell you instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s

[Sexy Celebrity]

I like what Morgan Freeman is saying in that video.... to a point, maybe. I once got attacked by a BLACK GUY one time (not violently attacked, verbally attacked, mind you) because I told a story about some people (that I did not know) and I referred to them as "black women." He was like, "How DARE you refer to them as BLACK women. They are WOMEN!"

Morgan Freeman -- and even the guy in my story -- may have a point, but I REALLY don't want it shoved down our throats to where we cannot even call someone "a black person" or a "white person." I do want the freedom to say "black person" or "white person" sometimes if you want to. The world should forget about racism and all that, but we should also be free to .... describe .... in our own creative ways at times, if we want to.

[Captain Steel]

*nods* I agree. Race exists. Just as I feel male and female exists. There's differences biologically, for sure.

But we don't have to act like the color of our skin should determine our whole lives. We don't have to act like, "I'm BLACK!" or "I'm WHITE!" everywhere we go. Yes, biologically, we must be something over something else, but BASICALLY, it's just skin color.

I am not Sexy Celebrity, a big walking, talking pile of white skin slithering around everywhere. I am BURDENED with my white skin. I am burdened with my white biological makeup. It's attached to me and not going anywhere. But I don't have to be RUBBING my whiteness around everywhere. I'm not trying to whiten up every room I go in. Every thing I touch does not turn white. I am not a white disease.

Agreed. Far too many people are focused on race as their own identifier or, more readily, that of others.

I've never woken up or looked in the mirror and thought "I am white," nor do I wake up and think "I am male." (However, I have looked in the mirror and thought, "I am fat.") ;)

The interesting thing is (for me) this not identifying others by ethnicity occurs as well. Naturally I observe someone's race or skin color when meeting them, but when working with people, after getting to know them, their ethnicity becomes so inconsequential as to be forgotten - it no longer registers. I'm sure most people have had this experience.

[Omnizoa]

I once got attacked by a BLACK GUY
I've been on the other side of this conversation before.

I asked what was so important about the fact that they were "black" that it was worth taking the effort to emphasize that element.

He got all sputtery and defensive and said "it's always the black guys that mess with me".

As true as that may be, at best it's worthless information to me and my friends who were listening, and at worst, as we immediately told him, it just sounds as if he's trying to beg sympathy against "those non-specific black people who always mess with him".

It just comes off as racist, so I'm disinclined to agree with you there, Sexy.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I've been on the other side of this conversation before.

I asked what was so important about the fact that they were "black" that it was worth taking the effort to emphasize that element.

He got all sputtery and defensive and said "it's always the black guys that mess with me".

As true as that may be, at best it's worthless information to me and my friends who were listening, and at worst, as we immediately told him, it just sounds as if he's trying to beg sympathy against "those non-specific black people who always mess with him".

It just comes off as racist, so I'm disinclined to agree with you there, Sexy.

I don't see it as racist at all. I honestly think the people who are so against it are the ones with the issues.

How silly and neurotic to freak out over people talking on a personal level to others and saying someone is "black" or something. Or even using the N word if they're comfortable using it among themselves. Mind your own damn business and take your political correctness junk somewhere else. If you wanna move past the race issue, then not only do you need to forget about racism -- you need to forget and not mind people who might still be speaking in a "racist" way in their own personal clique. If nobody's harming anybody, especially through language, I don't see what the problem is. People who freak out over every little itty bitty thing being done are neurotic. They're the ones who have the issue.

Mind your own damn business. There's nothing wrong with people defining others in certain ways if it's not hurting anybody. There's also nothing wrong with people defining themselves as male or female -- something you seem to be too scared to do.

[Omnizoa]

political correctness junk
It's not political correctness, SC, it's a simple query, "why are you bringing up their race in an irrelevant context?", it's says more about you that you think that information is important than it does about the people attackinv/harassing you.

you need to forget and not mind people who might still be speaking in a "racist" way in their own personal clique.
That's counter-productive.

[Sexy Celebrity]

It's not political correctness, SC, it's a simple query, "why are you bringing up their race in an irrelevant context?", it's says more about you that you think that information is important than it does about the people attackinv/harassing you.

That's counter-productive.

People can't have the freedom to talk among friends and say "black person" in a story if they want to? If their friends don't care, what is wrong here? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's wrong to police people and prevent them from having freedom of speech. That's going BACKWARDS, not forwards. If you want to live in that little prim and proper world of your own, go and enjoy -- but don't drag your nonsense in other people's private lives.

[Omnizoa]

People can't have the freedom to talk among friends and say "black person" in a story if they want to? If their friends don't care, what is wrong here? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's wrong to police people and prevent them from having freedom of speech. That's going BACKWARDS, not forwards. If you want to live in that little prim and proper world of your own, go and enjoy -- but don't drag your nonsense in other people's private lives.
Speaking on going backwards, you haven't really diffused what I said about being counter-productive.

You want people to forget "black" and "white" EXCEPT if you really really want to. What's the harm other than reminding people of what they're better off forgetting?

[Omnizoa]

It's one thing to defend freedom of speech in an informative sense, but it's another if you want to call each other crackers for ***** and giggles.

I am very much against political correctness and censorship, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that casual language can have insidious implications.

"That's so gay." for example.

[Sexy Celebrity]

You want people to forget "black" and "white" EXCEPT if you really really want to. What's the harm other than reminding people of what they're better off forgetting?

We don't have to see ourselves as black or white people. I don't go around feeling like I'm my white skin. I don't feel like my foot, or my teeth, or my butt or anything like that. Yes, we can FORGET about people as being "black" or "white." We can forget about it in professional settings and everything like that, ya know?

But in our own private, personal lives? It's absolutely nonsense that EVERYBODY needs to forget that people have different skin colors. In fact, I doubt it's ever gonna truly happen. We may not be our skin -- but our skin EXISTS. Our skin exists. We are a skin color, no matter what. If you could call someone "blue eyes" or "brown eyes" or whatever to someone in private, you can call someone a black person or a white person. In private, we don't have to be policed. We shouldn't be. Public can be a different story. But when I'm telling a story to somebody -- and I call somebody a "black person" -- if you don't like what I said, that's your issue. And if you wanna judge me for saying it, that's okay. But we shouldn't FORCE the whole world to forget that people have a skin color. 'Cause it ain't going away.

I can understand Morgan Freeman being angry about Black History Month. I get that he doesn't want to be seen as a black person. I really do. But the minute you start telling everybody that they can't EVER call somebody "a black person" anywhere.... that's where you cross the line with me. That's where you start to get crazy. That's when it's gone too far.

[Sexy Celebrity]

It's one thing to defend freedom of speech in an informative sense, but it's another if you want to call each other crackers for ***** and giggles.

I am very much against political correctness and censorship, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that casual language can have insidious implications.

"That's so gay." for example.

If people wanna talk like that, let 'em talk like that. You don't have to hang around them. I don't really like the saying, "That's so gay" either. But not everyone who says it is a bad person. I could even find myself saying it. I don't, but I could imagine myself doing it.

I think the F word used to describe gay men isn't always so bad in certain contexts. Someone could say it to me in a way that makes me slap them -- someone else could say it to me and depending on how it was used/who said it, I wouldn't care.

[The Gunslinger45]

Cops should be armed and should be allowed to use force as a final deterrent against an individual that is a threat.

But I can't get on board with "I was afraid for my life." OK, then why the hell did you become a police officer?

You ain't scared in certain situations as a cop you are insane. Fact of life bro. Being brave is being scared and carrying on. Not the absence of fear.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Have you had to kill anyone yet, Gunslinger? Just asking a serious question. You don't have to answer, just curious.

[The Gunslinger45]

No. That is a horrible question to ask someone in my position. Whether it be cop or combat vet.

[Sexy Celebrity]

He hates me now. He took off the Travis Bickle avatar I made him.

[Sexy Celebrity]

He doesn't hate me. He explained the change with me. We cool.

[Omnizoa]

But in our own private, personal lives? It's absolutely nonsense that EVERYBODY needs to forget that people have different skin colors. In fact, I doubt it's ever gonna truly happen.
It's not realism, it's idealism, and ideals do not become reality through an "it's never gonna happen" attitude. You're never gonna eliminate murder, but you can reduce it through guiding mentalities.

Besides which, professional peer pressure only extends so far. You're not going to meaningfully stamp out racism if everyone thinks it's okay to make slurs behind closed doors, that's for neo-nazis, not progressives.

[Sexy Celebrity]

It's not realism, it's idealism, and ideals do not become reality through an "it's never gonna happen" attitude. You're never gonna eliminate murder, but you can reduce it through guiding mentalities.

Besides which, professional peer pressure only extends so far. You're not going to meaningfully stamp out racism if everyone thinks it's okay to make slurs behind closed doors, that's for neo-nazis, not progressives.

I'm not on that train. That's a repressive way of seeing the world. The instincts for violence and cruelty and bigotry are natural, I believe. They are a part of human nature. The more you suppress, the more the urge to release it, to express it. Anger and frustration will be repressed through your vision of the world, but it will find a way to express it somehow, and maybe worse than people simply calling each other names in private. THAT is a vent. That is a psychological vent. And you're trying to clog it and stop it all up. This is why I said you're a neurotic. You believe in Utopia. You believe you'll make the world into some perfect fantasy of yours. You and your ideals do not reflect true human nature.

[Omnizoa]

I'm not on that train. That's a repressive way of seeing the world. The instincts for violence and cruelty and bigotry are natural, I believe. They are a part of human nature. The more you suppress, the more the urge to release it, to express it. Anger and frustration will be repressed through your vision of the world, but it will find a way to express it somehow, and maybe worse than people simply calling each other names in private. THAT is a vent. That is a psychological vent. And you're trying to clog it and stop it all up. This is why I said you're a neurotic. You believe in Utopia. You believe you'll make the world into some perfect fantasy of yours. You and your ideals do not reflect true human nature.
I think my earlier comment never eliminating murder is evidence enough of what I think of "utopia". We're not talking about ENFORCING oppression by outlawing certain words, we're talking about REDUCING oppression through a peer mentality. Don't tell me social constructs like slavery are a natural product of human nature that we can only suppress and funnel into other destructive behaviors, we need to consciously uncouple our word associations.

Native Americans are not Indians.

"Gay" is not a pejorative.

"Black" is an insufficient descriptor, and worse, a damaging generalization of character.

The term "black" in your example doesn't exist to offer a vivid retelling of a story, it's an attempt to characterize the attacker in a manner that evokes a specific stereotype in our minds, as a means to relate the story.

It may be unintentional, even innocent, but this is exactly how segregation begins: Someone does something noteworthy, they're referred to as different in some way, the listeners see the event echoed in other areas of their lives and pick up familiar patterns and, perhaps without even realizing, begin drawing subconcious associations between that thing that makes that person different and the otherwise irrelevant action they've seen.

And that's where you get stereotypes like grape soda, chicken, and waffles. Those new assumed differences become just another boundary separating you from an otherwise identical person with just a different shade of skin and serve as a catalyst for further speculative judgments.

I'm merely suggesting a way of thinking that disrupts this socially destructive spiral, by recognizing the problem and presenting it as a deterrant to others who would fall into that trap. Outright bans, as you seem to think I'm suggesting, are unhelpful by comparison.

[FromBeyond]

the real danger to black people, 99 out of 100 times, 9,900 out of 10,000 times, are other black kids who are going to kill them. That’s the way they’re gonna die.

[False Writer]

Regarding the "Black Lives Matter" movement, this quote by former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani I wholeheartedly agree with:

"Of course black lives matter, and they matter greatly," he said."But when you focus in on 1 percent of less than 1 percent of the murder that's going on in America and you make it a national thing, and all of you in the media make it much bigger than the black kid who's getting killed in Chicago every 14 hours, you treat it disproportionately."
Giuliani said only a small number of African-Americans will die at the hands of the police, whereas the majority of African-Americans killed will die at the hands of a civilian, "most often another black."
"If you want to protect black lives, then you got to protect black lives not just against police, which happens rarely, although with tremendous attention," he said.
"If you want to deal with this on the black side you've got to teach your children to be respectful to the police," he continued.
"And you’ve got to teach your children that the real danger to them is not the police, the real danger to them, 99 out of 100 times ... are other black kids who are going to kill them, that's the way they're going to die."
I live in Maryland so I get the Baltimore news... And I'm sure some of you know how bad Baltimore is in regards to violent crime. Every 48 hours or so there are reports of at least 1 murder and it's usually a black guy killing another black guy, and there are dozens more in every US city on a daily basis. If BLM at least tried to protest the black-on-black crime that is obviously a thousand times more rampant than the police shootings then I would have a lot more respect for them.

[matt72582]

I wish the focus was on too much police power, against ANYONE. Then we'd by stronger, and not be arguing among ourselves. Who knows, maybe BLM is infiltrated just like every other social group in America.

[Captain Steel]

As pointed out in the last few posts - the problem with BLM is that it is not focused on black lives because it has absolutely no concern with black lives taken by blacks. It is only concerned with black lives taken by whites or by white cops.

Just as with Al Sharpton; only SOME black lives matter - those taken by whites which can be used as a way to legitimize their anti-white racism.
As far as black lives taken by blacks, it's quite obvious that these lives do not matter very much to those who's only concern is their hatred for other races.

Now, before I give the impression that I am willfully obtuse to the concerns about police abuses in regards to minorities... I completely understand the difference between people who are victims of street crime and people who are unjustifiably killed or brutalized by police.
It is certainly an issue. Police are supposed to be held to a higher standard. They are supposed to protect and serve. Under our constitution, they are supposed to be the paragons of fairness and justice; colorblind to prejudice and the first to uphold equality under the law. Because they have authority (and the fact that they are armed), their level of responsibility must be a thousandfold greater than that of any civilian. They must not only enforce law and order, but must be the first and brightest example of abiding by it.

But, as already stated, since the problem with groups like BLM is that their focus is not on ALL black lives, but rather on being anti-police and anti-white, it creates a widespread mindset that results in people like Micah Johnson - who are not concerned with every black life mattering or with all human life having equal value, but only with those they can use as their excuse to fuel their hatred of whites, of police, of authority, of those they view as representing the system, the majority or wherever else they want to point their personal biases, prejudices and hatred.

[Omnizoa]

the real danger to black people, 99 out of 100 times, 9,900 out of 10,000 times, are other black kidsthe real danger to them, 99 out of 100 times ... are other black kids who are going to kill them,
Without context, that's a pretty gross hyperbole. And I don't think "respecting the police" is going to stop trigger-happy cops who are expected ABOVE ALL ELSE to ensure safety and moderation. Of course police gunning down civilians gets media attention, it should, it just shouldn't be framed as this whole racial thing it's become.

[Omnizoa]

Now, before I give the impression that I am willfully obtuse to the concerns about police abuses in regards to minorities... I completely understand the difference between people who are victims of street crime and people who are unjustifiably killed or brutalized by police.
It is certainly an issue. Police are supposed to be held to a higher standard.
Always so agreeable.

[Captain Steel]

Always so agreeable.

We'll just have to agree to agree! ;)

[Citizen Rules]

As pointed out in the last few posts - the problem with BLM is that it is not focused on black lives because it has absolutely no concern with black lives taken by blacks. It is only concerned with black lives taken by whites or by white cops.

Just as with Al Sharpton; only SOME black lives matter - those taken by whites which can be used as a way to legitimize their anti-white racism.
As far as black lives taken by blacks, it's quite obvious that these lives do not matter very much to those who's only concern is their hatred for other races.

Now, before I give the impression that I am willfully obtuse to the concerns about police abuses in regards to minorities... I completely understand the difference between people who are victims of street crime and people who are unjustifiably killed or brutalized by police.
It is certainly an issue. Police are supposed to be held to a higher standard. They are supposed to protect and serve. Under our constitution, they are supposed to be the paragons of fairness and justice; colorblind to prejudice and the first to uphold equality under the law. Because they have authority (and the fact that they are armed), their level of responsibility must be a thousandfold greater than that of any civilian. They must not only enforce law and order, but must be the first and brightest example of abiding by it.

But, as already stated, since the problem with groups like BLM is that their focus is not on ALL black lives, but rather on being anti-police and anti-white, it creates a widespread mindset that results in people like Micah Johnson - who are not concerned with every black life mattering or with all human life having equal value, but only with those they can use as their excuse to fuel their hatred of whites, of police, of authority, of those they view as representing the system, the majority or wherever else they want to point their personal biases, prejudices and hatred.
Well said Captain.

Think of BLM and it's supporters like McCarthyism in the 1950s and think of white police as the Soviet communist. What we have now is one group with so much hatred towards the other group, that it becomes a virtually witch hunt. No amount of logic will be listened to.

I don't know if anyone gets my comparison but it seems to me that racial paranoia is growing in groups like BLM and in individuals like Al Sharpton and Jada Smith...all that the rest of society can do is to duck, we dare not call it for what it is, reverse racism.

[Omnizoa]

witch hunt
Here's an idea, how about the police ACTUALLY HOLD THEIR OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE?

How many times have we heard of officers never giving their names or just being asked to take time off before returning? No penalties whatsoever? Make these guys social pariahs, that'll diffuse tensions.

[Captain Steel]

Here's an idea, how about the police ACTUALLY HOLD THEIR OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE?

How many times have we heard of officers never giving their names or just being asked to take time off before returning? No penalties whatsoever? Make these guys social pariahs, that'll diffuse tensions.

Every incident should be handled exclusively. And yes, if an investigation shows a cop to be guilty of brutality, an unjustified shooting or any other crime, they should be held accountable.

Last week (before the Dallas massacre) Obama stated that "these are not isolated incidents."

This was yet another instance where he made a gross generalization and it created division because he said something that is completely incorrect which gave the impression to various unthinking masses that there is an army of black-hating cops marching across the U.S., all united in a white supremacist effort to hunt down and kill innocent black men. (And who knows, these repeated types of biased generalizations may have indirectly inspired or fueled the actions by people like Micah Johnson who, instead of looking at the issue logically & analytically, bought into the generalization - that if these are not isolated incidents, then cops must be on some kind of coordinated mission to murder innocent blacks!)

But the truth is these ARE indeed isolated incidents!
There are ones where the cops are not white, but are minorities themselves. There are different circumstances with every incident. They've taken place hundreds of miles apart with cops from all different backgrounds who know absolutely nothing of each other, and they've taken place where the victims have been of every race. So Obama was totally incorrect when he stated "these are not isolated incidents" - it's irresponsible speech like this, that he's committed over and over, that has helped contribute to such nationwide volatility & racial hostility.

If anything is "not isolated incidents" it's the pattern of his overtly divisive racial & religious bias that he interjects at every juncture, including those that should not involve anyone at the Presidential level throwing out opinions before facts are in which can sway public opinion, negatively influence the uninformed or inspire them to violence, and poison future legal issues like jury pools.

[Omnizoa]

But the truth is these ARE indeed isolated incidents!
I almost always take "isolated instances" to mean "outliers".

These are not out-of-the-blue freak accidents or one cop just had a really bad day, it's a prevalent problem indicative of a wider issue.

[Captain Steel]

I almost always take "isolated instances" to mean "outliers".

These are not out-of-the-blue freak accidents or one cop just had a really bad day, it's a prevalent problem indicative of a wider issue.

This is the problem - what exactly is the "prevalent problem"?
Police shooting people? Police shooting citizens? Police shooting innocent people who are armed? Police shooting innocent people who are unarmed? Police shooting guilty people? Police shooting people posing a threat? Police shooting men? Women? Teens? Children? Police shooting blacks that are armed? Police shooting blacks that are unarmed? Police shooting whites? Asians? Hispanics? Middle-Easterners? Illegal Aliens? Police shooting people fleeing, people resisting arrest, people in car chases, people who are confrontational, people refusing to cooperate?

The point I'm making is there are so many incidents with so many variables that such details make all incidents "isolated" in the sense that they are all different. With far more whites (armed, unarmed, engaged in a crime or who turn out to be innocent) being shot by cops every year - even considering the numbers in proportion with the racial demographics of the overall population - it's impossible to say that there is this army of cops out there who are biased against and only want to shoot blacks. Yet that is the narrative perpetrated by people like Obama, Sharpton & BLM.

Of course the narrative is going to be true in some instances, but if you argued the statistics of how many white people are shot by cops every year, you could just as easily form a narrative that cops are biased against whites and are obviously out to shoot them since hundreds of armed and unarmed whites are shot by cops every year all over the country. The same could be done with most races in the U.S., but most races don't have nationally know agitators in the media & in positions of power to keep stirring the pot over the incidents they choose to elevate (while ignoring those that don't fit their agenda).

Again, I'm not trying to say that police abuses or corruption or bias or overuse of force or training are not real issues. I'm just saying that the issues are skewed in certain directions by people in the media and those in positions of influence.

[Omnizoa]

This is the problem - what exactly is the "prevalent problem"?
Police shooting people?
It's my impression that police aren't being properly trained in The Escalation of Force (https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/programs/fire-support/escalation-force-non-lethal-effects).

[False Writer]

Without context, that's a pretty gross hyperbole.

The truth isn't always pretty.

[Omnizoa]

The truth isn't always pretty.
Implying that 99% of all "black deaths" are "black on black" murders? No, without context I still don't believe that for a second.

[Camo]

Implying that 99% of all "black deaths" are "black on black" murders? No, without context I still don't believe that for a second.

I saw this posted on another forum earlier. I haven't read through it myself i'm just posting it because this exact same argument is happening on another forum so this must be relevant:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/25/giulianis-claim-that-93-percent-of-blacks-are-killed-by-other-blacks/

The 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report, a compilation of annual crime statistics, also shows similar data: 83 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders; 90 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders; 14 percent of white victims were killed by black offenders; and 7.6 percent of black victims were killed by white offenders.

[Omnizoa]

See, that makes more sense.

Giuliani’s statistic is rooted in Department of Justice studies. But it lacks significant context — especially because race relations and police treatment of minorities are complex and emotionally-charged topics. We also found it difficult to support Giuliani’s personal estimation of the rarity of deadly force by white police officers on black victims, but were limited by the unreliable data on homicides by police.

[cricket]

Police officers being killed is way more common than someone being killed by a police officer. Where's the cop lives matter movement?

Blacks are more likely to be killed by a black police officer than a white police officer.

More whites than blacks are killed by police, despite the fact that blacks are responsible for a higher percentage of violent crime.

[Daniel M]

I think I agree with pretty much everything SC has said in this thread.

[Omnizoa]

Blacks are more likely to be killed by a black police officer than a white police officer.

More whites than blacks are killed by police, despite the fact that blacks are responsible for a higher percentage of violent crime.
Really? Where do you get that?

[Swan]

Abraham Lincoln once said, "if you are racist I will attack you with the north". Those are the values I take with me everyday.

http://media.giphy.com/media/p1h9xitywCS5y/giphy.gif

[cricket]

Really? Where do you get that?

I've been seeing and hearing this stuff a lot. This is the first article I pulled up but there's a lot of them out there-

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler

[Camo]

Really? Where do you get that?

The bottom statement is true as far as i can tell. The top one you quoted doesn't sound right though. The amount of white officers compared to blacks makes me think that is probably not true. I may be wrong though.

[cricket]

The bottom statement is true as far as i can tell. The top one you quoted doesn't sound right though. The amount of white officers compared to blacks makes me think that is probably not true. I may be wrong though.

I just looked at that article and it just says a black police officer is more likely to fire a gun. It doesn't say anything about the results.

Either way, with only 2-3% of all black shooting deaths coming at the hands of police officers (some of them minorities), and considering that the police put themselves in all of the extreme danger zones where people hate them, I think they're doing an amazing job.

[Camo]

I just looked at that article and it just says a black police officer is more likely to fire a gun. It doesn't say anything about the results.

Either way, with only 2-3% of all black shooting deaths coming at the hands of police officers (some of them minorities), and considering that the police put themselves in all of the extreme danger zones where people hate them, I think they're doing an amazing job.

Yeah, i agree with you. That black officers are more likely to kill black people than white officers just didn't sound right though. Not because of white officers being racist or anything, just because of the sheer amount of them compared to black ones.

Also frankly i'm surprised it is as high as 2-3%, i think everytime a police shooting happens so many figures get thrown around i just end up lost.

[cricket]

And think about how low that number actually is for a group who spends all their time searching for criminals, and who race towards the gun shots when everyone else is running away. The disrespect shown to the police is disgusting.

[Omnizoa]

I've been seeing and hearing this stuff a lot. This is the first article I pulled up but there's a lot of them out there-

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler
Those are some... ****in' odd... odds.

If they're true they raise some significant questions. If "Cops killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks", yet at the same time "blacks" perpetuate 50-75% of all crime and constitute less than a sixth of the community, then how and why are "whites" being so disproportionately shot by cops? That's a HUGE discrepancy.

Also "black cops were 3.3 times more likely to fire a gun than other cops at a crime scene"? That has extremely dangerous implications, whether it's true or not.

Not the least of which if there's any one person on a squad of police officers who's 3 times more likely to shoot somebody, regardless of what they are, there's yet another huge discrepancy. Yet again, I'm inclined to assume it's the absence of the proper training in, or the enforcement of, Escalation of Force (or perhaps more appropriately "De-Escalation of Force").

Take a look at this **** for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g

They push the idea that it's okay to shoot an unarmed man approaching them and even stick a gun in their back while they're prone on the ground, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE TEACHING. They're basically saying their gun is a panic button and it's permissible to fire it so long as they feel threatened.

Yet in contrast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum#Subject_classifications), here's what SHOULD happen:

Passive resistor – a person who refuses to follow the verbal commands of the officer but does not resist attempts by officers to take positive physical control over them.

Active resistor – a person who does not follow verbal commands, resist attempts by the officer to take positive physical control over them, and does not try to inflict harm on the officer.

Active aggressor – a person who does not follow verbal commands, resists attempts by the officer to take positive physical control over them and attempts to cause harm to the officer or others.The approaching/prone man is considered an "active resistor", which warrants an, at maximum, level 3 response:
Generally, the passive subjects and active resistors fall under levels 1–3 of the use of force continuum, while active aggressors fall under levels 4–6. The officers are trained to apply the proper measure of force within the continuum based on the actions and classification of the subject.2. Verbal commands/cooperative controls – clear and understandable verbal direction by an officer aimed at the subject. In some cases, it is necessary for the officer to include a consequence to the verbal direction so that the subject understands what will happen if the subject refuses to comply with the officer’s direction. The verbal command and the consequence must be legal and not considered excessive according to the continuum. For example, an officer could not order a disabled person in a wheel chair to stand up or be sprayed by Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Pepper Spray.

3. Empty-hand submission techniques, PPCT - Pressure Point Control Tactics, Control Tactics, techniques – a level of force that has a low probability of causing soft connective tissue damage or bone fractures. This would include joint manipulation techniques, applying pressure to pressure points and normal application of hand-cuffs.

4. Hard control Techniques/Aggressive response techniques – the amount of force that has a probability of causing soft connective tissue damage or bone fractures or irritation of the skin, eyes, and mucus membranes. This would include kicks, punches, stuns and use of aerosol sprays such as oleoresin capsicum (OC) pepper spray. Some models split these techniques between empty hand, soft control and intermediate weapon techniques but only include 5 levels of the continuum.Even artificially escalating the situation two degrees into "active aggressor" doesn't even warrant the use of lethal force.


To be perfectly honest I think these police are ****ing morons. It really bothers me to think that they're employed, by taxpayers, to exercise POOR JUDGMENT as part of the JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.


Here's the solution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paDtpgzvIk4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FWxD_m0vyE

Incidentally, the first video was FOX, the other two were CBS and PBS.

[matt72582]

Police officers being killed is way more common than someone being killed by a police officer. Where's the cop lives matter movement?

Blacks are more likely to be killed by a black police officer than a white police officer.

More whites than blacks are killed by police, despite the fact that blacks are responsible for a higher percentage of violent crime.

That's because in a city of mostly black people, you're gonna have most of the cops that reflect the environment.

[Yoda]

So, this is only sort of related, but apparently some people being seated at a restaurant refused to sit next to a group of police officers, so the officers paid for their meal (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/us/cops-pay-bill-trnd/) as a show of good faith. The story's getting national attention.

I mention this for two reasons:

First, because this is the kind of thing that starts to fix things: not meeting hostility with hostility, even when it seems warranted.

Second, because this happened at a restaurant right by my house that I've been to maybe a hundred times.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160712104605-restaurant-cops-exlarge-169.jpg

[False Writer]

Implying that 99% of all "black deaths" are "black on black" murders? No, without context I still don't believe that for a second.

We're talking about "black homicides" not "black deaths" in general. I thought you already knew that. And it's 90% not 99.

[Citizen Rules]

About the police shooting of black suspects

...Last week (before the Dallas massacre) Obama stated that "these are not isolated incidents."

This was yet another instance where he made a gross generalization and it created division because he said something that is completely incorrect which gave the impression to various unthinking masses that there is an army of black-hating cop...

But the truth is these ARE indeed isolated incidents!
There are ones where the cops are not white, but are minorities themselves. There are different circumstances with every incident. They've taken place hundreds of miles apart with cops from all different backgrounds who know absolutely nothing of each other, and they've taken place where the victims have been of every race...

President Obama telling the nation that a handful of incidents involving white police shooting black suspects are, "not isolated incidents."...Is irresponsible, inflammatory, highly opinionated and unsupported by any logic.

I wish Obama had the guts to be an American first and a black man second.

But he's made it clear he is not color blind and draws sweeping conclusions about members on other races, based on his own negative feelings about them. That makes Obama just like this guy:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/eAEnR2gKpqSW1oXvllJgRD2o5jm6Gpq7WYE7cN9NIXiBl9Cbl63-sViwfHxjaO-PcbhNjXnE_66graf6dGl3=w426-h320-n

[TONGO]

About the police shooting of black suspects



President Obama telling the nation that a handful of incidents involving white police shooting black suspects are, "not isolated incidents."...Is irresponsible, inflammatory, highly opinionated and unsupported by any logic.

I wish Obama had the guts to be an American first and a black man second.

But he's made it clear he is not color blind and draws sweeping conclusions about members on other races, based on his own negative feelings about them. That makes Obama just like this guy:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/eAEnR2gKpqSW1oXvllJgRD2o5jm6Gpq7WYE7cN9NIXiBl9Cbl63-sViwfHxjaO-PcbhNjXnE_66graf6dGl3=w426-h320-n


Id rather have Archie Bunker as President than Donald Trump. Anyway, Obama is saying what he feels people need to hear, and wants less shootings overall. He hasnt waivered on his agenda and what he is saying falls in line with reasons for gun control. If he said everything is fine, and these incidents were isolated, then too many would turn on him. Neither side is in the complete right.

[mark f]

Blaming Obama for everything seems to be really big in these threads. I've started to post responses to many posts but I don't do it because people have the right to their opinions, no matter how biased they may be, but giving positive rep to many posts that are full of hate and are actually a non-stop parade of snide innuendo which anyone can see makes me feel bad for this site and its members. Sorry if I can't go into it any further - just call me crazy if you don't understand. R.I.P. to all those senselessly killed and who will be senselessly killed in the future.

[Captain Steel]

Blaming Obama for everything seems to be really big in these threads. I've started to post responses to many posts but I don't do it because people have the right to their opinions, no matter how biased they may be, but giving positive rep to many posts that are full of hate and are actually a non-stop parade of snide innuendo which anyone can see makes me feel bad for this site and its members. Sorry if I can't go into it any further - just call me crazy if you don't understand. R.I.P. to all those senselessly killed and who will be senselessly killed in the future.

The issue is that the office of the Presidency bears a lot of weight and a huge amount of influence. Of all 7 billion people in the world, his words will be heard by the most.

Therefore, Presidents are supposed to deal with broad issues because they cannot possibly weigh in on all local-level incidents. And if they do weigh in on any of them, they will be seen as picking & choosing which incidents they favor commenting on or choosing to influence public opinion on. That's not their job. This is why Presidents do not opine on local level incidents.

It's fine for a President to comment on mass shootings as these are broad events that may have major reverberations on a national level. But there is no reason he should be injecting his unsubstantiated & racially biased opinions (long before all the facts are in, mind you) on a miscommunication between police officers responding to a call and an irate college professor.

Or on the Zimmerman / Martin case (obviously publicly stating his condemnation of one party based entirely and only on skin color, long before it was thoroughly investigated or went to trial). That one was a local level criminal case that occurred between two individuals. How many thousands of other altercations between individuals occurred where someone is killed that the President never commented on?

Or to send three representatives from his administration to pay respects at Michael Brown's funeral (while ignoring those of fallen American soldiers or murdered American hostages) when it turned out that Brown was a thief who robbed stores, assaulted people, who tried to attack a cop and who's friend made up a lie about his death to try to cover his own backside - and it was that lie which prompted Obama's response to treat the thug like some kind of national hero.

Another good reason a President should not be injecting his own racial bias into local level incidents is because it's not good for him to then have to continually play duck & cover to try to avoid the obvious criticisms that he's abusing his authority by not sticking to his appointed area of responsibility, or to have to apologize when he jumps the gun and acts "stupidly" with unsupported comments, or to repeatedly be exposed as being wrong in his race-based, jump-to-conclusion judgments before all the facts are in.

[Omnizoa]

We're talking about "black homicides" not "black deaths" in general. I thought you already knew that.
"Homicide" wasn't specifically used and while it may have been implied, it would have been a hard premise to accept at 99%.

For all I know the statistics aren't even nationwide.

And it's 90% not 99.
90% is very different from 99%. Even accepting that, the same pool of statistics turns up some eyebrow-raising numbers.

It's also extremely convenient to get statistics that seem to vindicate officers when those statistics are collected from those same police officers.

President Obama telling the nation that a handful of incidents involving white police shooting black suspects are, "not isolated incidents."...Is irresponsible, inflammatory, highly opinionated and unsupported by any logic.
I think you guys are wildly misinterpreting what that means.

[matt72582]

Most people like to have answers for every question, but I don't think you can legislate understanding.

[cricket]

[CENTER]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g

[LEFT]They push the idea that it's okay to shoot an unarmed man approaching them and even stick a gun in their back while they're prone on the ground, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE TEACHING. They're basically saying their gun is a panic button and it's permissible to fire it so long as they feel threatened.

I think you misread that video. They put an activist and a newsman in their shoes to see how they would react. They never said that's how they should react.

[Omnizoa]

I think you misread that video. They put an activist and a newsman in their shoes to see how they would react. They never said that's how they should react.
It's pretty implicit.

If that wasn't the appropriate solution then it completely defeats the purpose of presenting the information in this way.

All it really tells us is:
You think being a cop is so easy? *gives gun*

*scares you into shooting an unarmed man*

See? You also suck at this, so stop judging us.

[False Writer]

Blaming Obama for everything seems to be really big in these threads. I've started to post responses to many posts but I don't do it because people have the right to their opinions, no matter how biased they may be, but giving positive rep to many posts that are full of hate and are actually a non-stop parade of snide innuendo which anyone can see makes me feel bad for this site and its members. Sorry if I can't go into it any further - just call me crazy if you don't understand. R.I.P. to all those senselessly killed and who will be senselessly killed in the future.

The issue is that the office of the Presidency bears a lot of weight and a huge amount of influence. Of all 7 billion people in the world, his words will be heard by the most.

Therefore, Presidents are supposed to deal with broad issues because they cannot possibly weigh in on all local-level incidents. And if they do weigh in on any of them, they will be seen as picking & choosing which incidents they favor commenting on or choosing to influence public opinion on. That's not their job. This is why Presidents do not opine on local level incidents.

It's fine for a President to comment on mass shootings as these are broad events that may have major reverberations on a national level. But there is no reason he should be injecting his unsubstantiated & racially biased opinions (long before all the facts are in, mind you) on a miscommunication between police officers responding to a call and an irate college professor.

Or on the Zimmerman / Martin case (obviously publicly stating his condemnation of one party based entirely and only on skin color, long before it was thoroughly investigated or went to trial). That one was a local level criminal case that occurred between two individuals. How many thousands of other altercations between individuals occurred where someone is killed that the President never commented on?

Or to send three representatives from his administration to pay respects at Michael Brown's funeral (while ignoring those of fallen American soldiers or murdered American hostages) when it turned out that Brown was a thief who robbed stores, assaulted people, who tried to attack a cop and who's friend made up a lie about his death to try to cover his own backside - and it was that lie which prompted Obama's response to treat the thug like some kind of national hero.

Another good reason a President should not be injecting his own racial bias into local level incidents is because it's not good for him to then have to continually play duck & cover to try to avoid the obvious criticisms that he's abusing his authority by not sticking to his appointed area of responsibility, or to have to apologize when he jumps the gun and acts "stupidly" with unsupported comments, or to repeatedly be exposed as being wrong in his race-based, jump-to-conclusion judgments before all the facts are in.

1000% agree with Captain Steel's response.

[Omnizoa]

The problem with the "stop injecting your racial bias" bit is that it can invoked regardless of who is dissenting.

If McCain was president and defending the police you'd hear the exact same thing from the other side of the fence.

[Citizen Rules]

Blaming Obama for everything seems to be really big in these threads. I've started to post responses to many posts but I don't do it because people have the right to their opinions, no matter how biased they may be

but giving positive rep to many posts that are full of hate and are actually a non-stop parade of snide innuendo which anyone can see makes me feel bad for this site and its members. Sorry if I can't go into it any further - just call me crazy if you don't understand. R.I.P. to all those senselessly killed and who will be senselessly killed in the future.I respect your movie opinions, but I find that post funny....In one breath you accuse others of being biased, then in the next breath you post your own bias on the subject...It's kind of ironic don't you think.

And if you're suggesting we aren't allowed to criticize the current president because no one should ever dare to criticize a president of color...well to that I say, nuts! The day that Obama gets a free ride just because of the tone of his skin, is the day we lose our liberties. It's an American institution to criticizes the President. Where's your concern for criticism of President Bush? He's certainly gotten a lot of it, on this site. And will your concern for 'bias comments' extend to Donald Trump if he wins the election?

Image if George W Bush had been the setting president during the Zimmerman / Martin case and had done what Obama had done, only Bush did it favor of George Zimmerman. What do you think would have happened? The crap would have hit the fan and whites and blacks alike would have called George Bush a racist for taking sides in a criminal case.

[Omnizoa]

The day that Obama gets a free ride just because of the tone of his skin, is the day we lose our liberties.
Isn't that how he got elected?


Anyway, I'm of the opinion that part of being president is simply being a public scapegoat for senators. They have a lot of power, but it's all too convenient to hang so many problems on one man when the government model isn't monoarchy.

[mark f]

Does anybody even know what Obama said about Trayvon Martin and when he said it because it sure doesn't sound like it.
Initial comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDPYzByDfPQ
Post-verdict:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_4YWNYeXk

[Guaporense]

I agree. If you wanna be a cop, you gotta be willing to die. It's a risky business. Now cops should absolutely protect their lives, but they also shouldn't be quick to killing other people's lives just to save their own. Especially if they don't really need to be killing those people.

Also the death rates among cops are lower than truck drivers (who are always risking their lives on the highway).

--------------

Overall statistical studies have shown that cops have no bias regarding violent action against blacks. However these studies have shown that cops have bias regarding non-violent action like arresting, questioning or handcuffing regarding blacks.

Anyway, its true that racism is a problem in the US. The problem is much smaller than it used to be but still there is some racism in the behavior of cops to people. Although it's true that this type of prejudice is kinda rational because blacks have a higher probability of being criminals than non-blacks. Overall though the problem is that people think too much of race in the US instead of thinking of people as individuals.

But it's an problem that US police appears to be excessively brutal overall. They kill about 1 thousand people a year, in Japan there are less than 500 murders of any type a year and the police there doesn't kill anybody, in Germany the police kills only 4 people a year, a country with 1/4 of the population. Most of these killings are not of blacks (who are 1/4 of the killings) so this is a more general problem rather than a racial problem. Although blacks have this tendency to think too much in racial terms rather than see that polive brutality is the main problem.

[Camo]

And if you're suggesting we aren't allowed to criticize the current president because no one should ever dare to criticize a president of color...well to that I say, nuts! The day that Obama gets a free ride just because of the tone of his skin, is the day we lose our liberties. It's an American institution to criticizes the President. Where's your concern for criticism of President Bush? He's certainly gotten a lot of it, on this site. And will your concern for 'bias comments' extend to Donald Trump if he wins the election?

Image if George W Bush had been the setting president during the Zimmerman / Martin case and had done what Obama had done, only Bush did it favor of George Zimmerman. What do you think would have happened? The crap would have hit the fan and whites and blacks alike would have called George Bush a racist for taking sides in a criminal case.

This is all just a massive strawman built on something Mark never said.

What Mark actually said about Obama:

Blaming Obama for everything seems to be really big in these threads.

And he's right, not just Obama but every president ever get's blamed for absolutely everything by the opposing side whether they were involved or not, just like their supporters try to excuse everything they do whether right or wrong. Nowhere did he mention race or you being allowed to criticize him if it is warranted.

[Omnizoa]

And he's right, not just Obama but every president ever get's blamed for absolutely everything by the opposing side whether they were involved or not, just like their supporters try to excuse everything they do whether right or wrong. Nowhere did he mention race or you being allowed to criticize him if it is warranted.
Dang, seems like we agree on something.

[cricket]

It's pretty implicit.

If that wasn't the appropriate solution then it completely defeats the purpose of presenting the information in this way.

All it really tells us is:

No, that's not what was implied at all. If the police shot everyone that picked a fight with them, we wouldn't have anywhere to bury all the bodies.

[Daniel M]

Blaming Obama for everything seems to be really big in these threads. I've started to post responses to many posts but I don't do it because people have the right to their opinions, no matter how biased they may be, but giving positive rep to many posts that are full of hate and are actually a non-stop parade of snide innuendo which anyone can see makes me feel bad for this site and its members. Sorry if I can't go into it any further - just call me crazy if you don't understand. R.I.P. to all those senselessly killed and who will be senselessly killed in the future.

Spot on, over the last year or two this has become really prevalent around the site. There seems to be so much hate and I don't understand, and it worries me how so many of these posts gets so much rep.

[cricket]

Who is the hate towards? The reason I'm asking is because I haven't read all of the posts.

[Daniel M]

Who is the hate towards? The reason I'm asking is because I haven't read all of the posts.

I think it's just a kind of general atmosphere and feeling. Instead of people trying to understand problems and support black people or admit failings of police system, or suggest solutions, they are trying to justify things, point the blame on someone/something else, there seems to be an overall denial of a real problem, every time the constitution, institution, police etc. get attacked we get a barrage of excuses and statistics that attempt to shift the blame (normally to Obama) and fail to address the real problem. To some people here, it seems that white people can do no wrong, Republicans can do no wrong, police can do no wrong. I also think there's a worrying anti-Islamophobic agenda in a lot of people's posts too, it's always the same bunch of people, it's all interlinked and it honestly saddens me.

[Omnizoa]

No, that's not what was implied at all. If the police shot everyone that picked a fight with them, we wouldn't have anywhere to bury all the bodies.
Not all police, those police, and if not, then why was that the example in their transparent appeal to empathy?

Why did they prime both of them with a scenario in which they're guaranteed to be shot unless the officer specifically preempts them by assuming a threat?

The first thing they learned is that they'll get shot unless they shoot first even when the suspect appears to be unarmed and that IS NOT what the takeaway should be in such an exercise.

The police in the following two videos AGREE with me, people are not being properly trained and they should not be on the force if they behave that way.

[cricket]

But like Obama and many others, you're bringing up race. Why are police shootings a racial problem when it involves all races?

[cricket]

Not all police, those police, and if not, then why was that the example in their transparent appeal to empathy?

Why did they prime both of them with a scenario in which they're guaranteed to be shot unless the officer specifically preempts them by assuming a threat?

The first thing they learned is that they'll get shot unless they shoot first even when the suspect appears to be unarmed and that IS NOT what the takeaway should be in such an exercise.

The police in the following two videos AGREE with me, people are not being properly trained and they should not be on the force if they behave that way.

I completely forget the 3rd exercise so I'll talk about the first 2. In the first, he is killed by an armed man. In the second, he kills an unarmed man. If anything is implied, it's that he handled both situations wrong. This guy is a leading activist and this drill changed his outlook; that should tell you everything you need to know.

[Omnizoa]

If anything is implied, it's that he handled both situations wrong. This guy is a leading activist and this drill changed his outlook; that should tell you everything you need to know.
If that were true it was conveyed extremely poorly.

[Daniel M]

But like Obama and many others, you're bringing up race. Why are police shootings a racial problem when it involves all races?

This is what I mean, you honestly think that there isn't a racial problem here? To me this seems part of the problem.

[cricket]

This is what I mean, you honestly think that there isn't a racial problem here? To me this seems part of the problem.

More whites than blacks are killed by the police, so explain that.

[cricket]

If that were true it was conveyed extremely poorly.

I thought it was blatantly obvious, but I'm not going to criticize you because I don't know where you live or what experience you have with dealing with American police.

[Omnizoa]

More whites than blacks are killed by the police, so explain that.
Can you?

[cricket]

Can you?

No, so I don't say it's a racial problem against whites.

[Daniel M]

More whites than blacks are killed by the police, so explain that.

Because whites make up 64% of the population whilst blacks make up 12%?

[cricket]

Because whites make up 64% of the population whilst blacks make up 12%?

And that 12% is more responsible for violent crime than the 64%.

[Omnizoa]

I thought it was blatantly obvious, but I'm not going to criticize you because I don't know where you live or what experience you have with dealing with American police.
My personal experience is irrelevant because my argument isn't biased. Provided the political climate context this was released in, this little demo by the police comes across as nothing short of manipulative PR.

If that video contained a SHRED of criticism at how they handled the exercise I might be able to believe it, but even then the message becomes useless.

An exercise that tells them they're doing it wrong only serves to reinforce what we already know: that some police aren't approaching situations properly.

An exercise that DOESN'T correct them can at least come across as an apoeal to empathy which actually serves a purpose for mending police/activist relations, but it's arguably WORSE because it implies that police are acting in line with people who are completely inexperienced in handling these kinds of situations. It paints them as incompetant.

[Daniel M]

And that 12% is more responsible for violent crime than the 64%.

Don't know if that's true, but probably such a figure is based on arrests, I'd suggest victimisation against them because of race, and also the fact that their living conditions and welfare are often considered worse, poverty leads to crime.

Also, I'm not seeing that these killings have anything to do with violent crime, watching videos is seems to trigger happy cops who have no control over the situation and little regard for human life. They see shooting as a viable, normal option, it should be a last resort.

[cricket]

You're missing the whole point of the exercise. It was just to show somebody critical of them how difficult their job is, and how little time there is to react. That was it.

[cricket]

Don't know if that's true, but probably such a figure is based on arrests, I'd suggest victimisation against them because of race, and also the fact that their living conditions and welfare are often considered worse, poverty leads to crime.

I don't agree that it's victimization because of race; the crime in the black neighborhoods is very real. I would agree that the poverty level is a factor.

[Daniel M]

I was recently on holiday in Barcelona for a week and there were a lot of Americans out there, it really surprised me just how similar they were too a lot of people on here either. They thought America was this great country and that all the problems were caused by Obama who they described as racist, they absolutely loved guns, we asked them to explain why and most of it was just stuff like "we were brought up with guns" or "our dad loves guns so we do", talking about problems with immigrants and muslims, nobody could believe some of the stuff they were saying.

I honestly think it's a culture thing, people are brought to think their country is great and that any problems are caused by outside influences corrupting it, failing to accept that the issues are fundamental and need to be dealt with at source. Isn't part of the constitution freedom of speech? Yet you're not allowed to question and want to change the constitution, you're not allowed to criticise police? I thought it was disgusting that the police responded with very clear threats and saying they wouldn't protect Tarantino after he criticised them, what type of democracy is that? That's a backwards mentality that shouldn't exist in a first world country, people should be allowed to challenge rules, and use democracy to try and change them.

[cricket]

I agree with a lot of that, but freedom of speech has it's limits. Criticism of the police is allowed, but why would people criticize the police as a group, over the actions of a few individuals. Isn't that like criticizing the black race for the actions of a few?

[Daniel M]

But, regardless of whether what people say is right or wrong, I don't think that public groups and those employed to protect and serve them should threaten them with action regardless. They are in a position of power and should look to protect them regardless of whether people hate them or not, not pick and choose based on what people have said.

[cricket]

All I saw, and all I can find now, is the police threatening to boycott his movie.

You see for people like me in this thread, it's not about hate, but just the opposite. We are saying to stop judging individuals by the groups or races they belong to.

[Omnizoa]

You're missing the whole point of the exercise. It was just to show somebody critical of them how difficult their job is, and how little time there is to react. That was it.
If so, then pardon me. I didn't expect it to be so shallow and worthlessly uninformative.

And I still don't, when the video is summarized with lines like "It's hard to make that call", "things happen very fast out here", and "people need to comply with law enforcement officers for their own sake" how can I ignore the subtext?

All it's saying is "police officers have a hard job" (which, DUH, you want me to throw a pity party for you?) and "obey the police or get shot".

It should not be hard to make that call if they're correctly trained to react appropriately with a strict If-Then-Else manner of conduct that focuses on de-escalation and prevention of violent conflicts.

Things happen very fast, YES, and the job itself isn't easy, OBVIOUSLY, but for this video to predicate itself on the controversy of police shooting unarmed civilians and then feign some sort of empty revelation with questionable editing and an undue emphasis on "compliance for your own sake"?

No, it's an appeal to empathy that asks you to feel sorry for the police and maybe not do something extreme like WALK TOWARDS THEM.

Sorry, cricket, my BS radar just keeps going off with this one, especially when others are doing a far better job of genuinely identifying, admitting to, and taking steps to rectify their own problems. This screams PR stunt to me.

[cricket]

You're reaching for meaning in that video that isn't there. It's just an exercise akin to letting someone drive a race car.

[Omnizoa]

You're reaching for meaning in that video that isn't there. It's just an exercise akin to letting someone drive a race car.
Hardly what I'd call news.

[cricket]

Hardly what I'd call news.

Here in Boston, a couple weeks ago, a local media member accepted an invite to go out and drive a race car. He accepted and afterwards talked about how it was scary at first and bla bla bla. A meaningless story, but the point is that it was no different than the police video. It was just an exercise to give someone an experience they wouldn't normally have. The police video doesn't get into training or procedure at all.

[Omnizoa]

Here in Boston, a couple weeks ago, a local media member accepted an invite to go out and drive a race car. He accepted and afterwards talked about how it was scary at first and bla bla bla. A meaningless story, but the point is that it was no different than the police video. It was just an exercise to give someone an experience they wouldn't normally have. The police video doesn't get into training or procedure at all.
*shrug* The volatile political pretext isn't doing it any favors in either case.

[False Writer]

Spot on, over the last year or two this has become really prevalent around the site. There seems to be so much hate and I don't understand, and it worries me how so many of these posts gets so much rep.

Ohh man... Just because a few of us don't blindly bow down to political correctness automatically means we're closet homophobic islamophobic misogynistic racists... because yeah, that's totally the truth... :rolleyes:

I think it's just a kind of general atmosphere and feeling. Instead of people trying to understand problems and support black people or admit failings of police system, or suggest solutions, they are trying to justify things, point the blame on someone/something else, there seems to be an overall denial of a real problem, every time the constitution, institution, police etc. get attacked we get a barrage of excuses and statistics that attempt to shift the blame (normally to Obama) and fail to address the real problem. To some people here, it seems that white people can do no wrong, Republicans can do no wrong, police can do no wrong. I also think there's a worrying anti-Islamophobic agenda in a lot of people's posts too, it's always the same bunch of people, it's all interlinked and it honestly saddens me.

Everything you said can literally be applied to the BLM movement:

Not understanding the real problem: automatically jumping to conclusions when the full details aren't even revealed.

Pointing blame at someone else: the "evil whiteys".

The overall denial of the problem: that the glorification of crime and violence and hatred of law enforcement in black culture has created this situation, and that if they want true racial harmony they NEED to also address the black-on-black violence that is way more rampant but is constantly ignored by mainstream media. Because I tell ya, how things are going right now is NOT GOOD!

[Omnizoa]

Ohh man... Just because a few of us don't blindly bow down to political correctness automatically means we're closet homophobic islamophobic misogynistic racists... because yeah, that's totally the truth... :rolleyes:
Pretty sure that's not what he means.

Everything you said can literally be applied to the BLM movement:

Not understanding the real problem: automatically jumping to conclusions when the full details aren't even revealed.

Pointing blame at someone else: the "evil whiteys".
Here's an idea: how about everyone's to blame? Let's all get back to our corners, fix our ****, and make it work, yeah?

[cricket]

*shrug* The volatile political pretext isn't doing it any favors in either case.

But if you're the only one imagining it?

[Omnizoa]

But if you're the only one imagining it?
You can only speculate on the motive of the video as I can. I've given numerous reasons why I think it's misguided, but if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

I HOPE I'm wrong.

But if people are in agreement that "not isolated incidents" is something inflammatory and intrinsically racially charged, then I don't think I'm making any extreme leaps by comparison.

[cricket]

You can only speculate on the motive of the video as I can. I've given numerous reasons why I think it's misguided, but if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

I HOPE I'm wrong.

But if people are in agreement that "not isolated incidents" is something inflammatory and intrinsically racially charged, then I don't think I'm making any extreme leaps by comparison.

I'm not speculating on the motive of the video. I'm commenting about what is on the video, which can't be disputed.

[Omnizoa]

I'm not speculating on the motive of the video.
You're asserting there is no ulterior motive, which is speculative.

I'm commenting about what is on the video, which can't be disputed.
What is on the video suggests a disputable motive. My point is neither of us know. Our certainty is without proof, only evidence.

I think it's PR, you don't, regardless, the bulk of my argument was in the other two videos I posted.

[cricket]

You're asserting there is no ulterior motive, which is speculative.


What is on the video suggests a disputable motive. My point is neither of us know. Our certainty is without proof, only evidence.

I think it's PR, you don't, regardless, the bulk of my argument was in the other two videos I posted.

I'm not asserting anything, and I'm not imagining the video suggests anything. I'm commenting on what we see, nothing more.

[False Writer]

Here's an idea: how about everyone's to blame? Let's all get back to our corners, fix our ****, and make it work, yeah?

I completely agree with that Omni. For any of this to actually work we all have to take a look at ourselves and see how we can change instead of kicking and screaming for other people to change.

I hope Daniel M doesn't take my post personally, I've just been really frustrated with how things have been going the past 4 years. Since this whole media circus began it's undeniable that race relations have gotten a lot worse than they were a decade or so ago.

For anything positive to happen, there has to be effort from all sides.

[cricket]

You're right FW; as long as people want to make race an issue, race will be an issue. The issue should be what can everyone do to make dealings with the police go more smoothly.

[Daniel M]

I'm not disputing that the BLM movement and actions of some people on the "black side" aren't problematic and wrong either, because they are. But I think just focussing on the opposite side flaws is an easy way of shifting the blame from your own failures. There needs to be dialogue, discussion, understanding. Even if you disagree with the the black side (using these terms to simplify argument, obviously its not as black and white as us V them) I feel like I don't see a lot of empathy for their situation.

[cricket]

I'm not disputing that the BLM movement and actions of some people on the "black side" aren't problematic and wrong either, because they are. But I think just focussing on the opposite side flaws is an easy way of shifting the blame from your own failures. There needs to be dialogue, discussion, understanding. Even if you disagree with the the black side (using these terms to simplify argument, obviously its not as black and white as us V them) I feel like I don't see a lot of empathy for their situation.

Because it's not their situation. It's our situation.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I keep thinking BLM movement says "bowel movement."

[cricket]

Speaking of the BLM movement, can anybody say what that might accomplish? Even if all these protests were completely peaceful, police will still carry guns, violent crime will still happen, and police involved shootings will still be investigated. Of course they're not all peaceful. There are morons laying down on highways, and scumbags chanting and carrying signs promoting violence against police. Things will be worse because of BLM.

BLM had a rally in Chicago shortly after the July 4th weekend when over 60 black men were shot in that city. They were protesting a shooting in another state. It kind of seems like black lives only matter when they're shot by a white cop.

[Citizen Rules]

Spot on, over the last year or two this has become really prevalent around the site. There seems to be so much hate and I don't understand, and it worries me how so many of these posts gets so much rep.

Who is the hate towards? The reason I'm asking is because I haven't read all of the posts.

No one has said anything hateful towards blacks on this thread. I don't recall ever reading any hate language like that at Mofo. I'm quite proud at how civil the MoFos are in discussing this issue. It's PC crap that we have to use 'kid gloves' with Obama, he comes under the microscope just like any other president.

[False Writer]

BLM had a rally in Chicago shortly after the July 4th weekend when over 60 black men were shot in that city. They were protesting a shooting in another state. It kind of seems like black lives only matter when they're shot by a white cop.

The only logical conclusion I can find is that those 60 black lives don't matter to Black Lives Matter.

No one has said anything hateful towards blacks on this thread. I don't recall ever reading any hate language like that at Mofo. I'm quite proud at how civil the MoFos are in discussing this issue. It's PC crap that we have to use 'kid gloves' with Obama, he comes under the microscope just like any other president.

You're absolutely right citizen. All presidents before Obama were criticized relentlessly during their term. It's just that with Obama his supporters just pull the race card whenever it happens, even when race has nothing to do with whatever he's getting criticized on.

[seanc]

Couple of questions.

To those who oppose the BLM movement. Do the killings of unarmed black men alarm you in any way? The statistics used that say other races are killed at just as high a rate are food for thought, so should be the statistics that say unarmed black men are killed at a much higher rate than other races. What is the reason for that? Do you feel race plays a factor in these statistics at all?

To those who sympathize with the BLM movement. What do you think will be the end results of these protests? The movement to me seems to lack leadership and a singular voice, do you see that? If so, where from? Police brutality is in fact illegal, so what laws do you see that need changing to help stop the needless deaths? Are on person cams enough of a move to stop the protesting?

[cricket]

Couple of questions.

To those who oppose the BLM movement. Do the killings of unarmed black men alarm you in any way? The statistics used that say other races are killed at just as high a rate are food for thought, so should be the statistics that say unarmed black men are killed at a much higher rate than other races. What is the reason for that? Do you feel race plays a factor in these statistics at all?

I don't know if being alarmed is how I'd put it. It's upsetting when anyone gets killed. A victim being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean the shooting was unjustified. I think these things need to be looked at on an individual basis. If there was a rash of unjustified murders by police, that would certainly be alarming, but there's no evidence of that. Obviously, it's going to happen occasionally.

I think there are things that could help this situation, and some people aren't going to like it, but expand laws and give police more power. Toughen sentencing for assault & battery on a police officer, make resisting arrest a felony, toughen laws on tinted windows, things of that nature.

One of the things I don't like about the BLM movement is the grouping of it, not only making it about 1 race, but also making a generalization about police shooting blacks. If it is justified, then there's no beef. It's when a white police officer unjustifiably shoots a black man, and then goes unpunished, that there should be protests. They seem to be protesting the use of all deadly force, only against blacks, and that's not right.

[Friendly Mushroom!]

You know, for a movie that made over a billion dollars at the box office, it sure seems like Zootopia didn't changed a dxxx thing unfortunately.

[seanc]

I would call the Walter Scott, Eric Garner, and Alton Sterling deaths reason for concern. Those are just the ones we have seen where police quite literally have the upper hand and still use lethal force. I understand what people are saying about listening to the cops and cops needing to defend their lives. There certainly needs to be a point where detainment is the proper and humane choice. All these cases seem to go way past that point. It would be very hard for you to convince me that I would get choked out for selling loosies in front of my local convenient store.

I mostly agree with your sentiments Cricket, I don't think it is the whole story though.

[cricket]

I'm not familiar with Garner or Scott off hand, but Sterling resisted even after he was tazed, was warned by the police when on the ground not to grab his gun, and apparently (on the video) reached for it anyway. Maybe the cops could have done something different, but they're not super heroes, and it at least appears that it was Sterling's own actions that led to his demise.

[seanc]

I'm not familiar with Garner or Scott off hand, but Sterling resisted even after he was tazed, was warned by the police when on the ground not to grab his gun, and apparently (on the video) reached for it anyway. Maybe the cops could have done something different, but they're not super heroes, and it at least appears that it was Sterling's own actions that led to his demise.

I'm not saying he was right, but when he is on the ground and there are at least two officers standing over him. Five bullets doesn't seem like the proper route to me.

[cricket]

The amount of bullets does sound bad, but you only fire your weapon under life threatening circumstances, and at that point it's kill or be killed. They don't take chances, and neither would I if it was my life on the line.

You're at home with your family when an intruder breaks in with a gun in his waistband. You pull out your gun, point it at him, and tell him not to move. He then reaches for his pistol; do you shoot once, or unload?

[seanc]

The amount of bullets does sound bad, but you only fire your weapon under life threatening circumstances, and at that point it's kill or be killed. They don't take chances, and neither would I if it was my life on the line.

You're at home with your family when an intruder breaks in with a gun in his waistband. You pull out your gun, point it at him, and tell him not to move. He then reaches for his pistol; do you shoot once, or unload?

Am I trained to subdue someone? Do I have him on the ground with my knee in his chest with another highly trained weapons expert with his gun drawn helping me?

[cricket]

Am I trained to subdue someone? Do I have him on the ground with my knee in his chest with another highly trained weapons expert with his gun drawn helping me?

But he could be stronger then they are, and they are literally fighting for their lives. Is that a chance someone should take against an armed criminal?

[Daniel M]

The amount of bullets does sound bad, but you only fire your weapon under life threatening circumstances, and at that point it's kill or be killed. They don't take chances, and neither would I if it was my life on the line.

You're at home with your family when an intruder breaks in with a gun in his waistband. You pull out your gun, point it at him, and tell him not to move. He then reaches for his pistol; do you shoot once, or unload?

How is that comparable? Surely a policeman should expect confrontation with armed people in his line of work, and should be trained to deal with the situation with the right amount of force to protect himself and cause minimum harm to the person that they are dealing with. Obviously there's going to be some discretion over what force is reasonable, but I think in a number of cases the actions of the police go way beyond the line.

For a civilian to unload in a state of panic in a rare situation against someone likely to be very willing to commit violence against him, it's understandable. Obviously I'm not American so don't own guns or such, but even if an intruder came into my home I'd like to think I'd use a reasonable amount of force to protect myself and not absolutely execute them.

[cricket]

An officer is not going to know what the minimum amount of force is. If their life is threatened, they need to end that threat beyond a reasonable doubt.

[cricket]

I mean really guys, if he's alive, he can still reach for his gun.

[Daniel M]

I think that notion is absolutely absurd. Mental. It's okay to kill someone just because there's even the smallest possibility they could be killed themselves? There's a possibility in every situation they could be killed themselves. They should know how to act and what is acceptable. I just don't know how some of the videos I have seen can be justified in any way. Sorry.

[seanc]

An officer is not going to know what the minimum amount of force is. If their life is threatened, they need to end that threat beyond a reasonable doubt.

We can go round and round forever. I'm never going to be okay with unarmed people being shot dead if it is reasonable to take them in another way. I think all of three of these cases look very bad and I don't think they are isolated incidents. You won't see me in the middle of a BLM protest any time soon. I'm not even completely sure what the answer is. I do know that I wish people with opinions and concerns would start giving other people with opinions and concerns the time of day. That includes both sides. I have gone past disheartened on these matters to a place I can't even describe.

[cricket]

But Sterling had a gun?

[cricket]

I think that notion is absolutely absurd. Mental. It's okay to kill someone just because there's even the smallest possibility they could be killed themselves? There's a possibility in every situation they could be killed themselves. They should know how to act and what is acceptable. I just don't know how some of the videos I have seen can be justified in any way. Sorry.

How is a guy reaching for a gun equal the smallest possibility of the other guy being shot?

[seanc]

But Sterling had a gun?

You are right and I apologize. I thought Sterling was unarmed. That changes things in this instance for me. There are plenty recently where men were unarmed though. Enough to raise eyebrows I feel.

[cricket]

You are right and I apologize. I thought Sterling was unarmed. That changes things in this instance for me. There are plenty recently where men were unarmed though. Enough to raise eyebrows I feel.

It's tough. I saw two videos today of different unarmed white guys being gunned down. In both cases, they would not listen to police and reached for their waistbands. As sad as it is, you can't blame the police.

I forget the name, but I remember a recent incident of an officer gunning down a black man in a park while he was running away. That was murder.

[seanc]

It's tough. I saw two videos today of different unarmed white guys being gunned down. In both cases, they would not listen to police and reached for their waistbands. As sad as it is, you can't blame the police.

I forget the name, but I remember a recent incident of an officer gunning down a black man in a park while he was running away. That was murder.

That's the Walter Scott one I mentioned. The Garner one was the guy who was selling cigarettes in NYC a couple years ago. I think each situation needs to be handled as it comes and I don't think police are setting out to murder black men. I do think there is something going on though, and it saddens me.

[cricket]

Just watched the Garner video and I remember it. I'm unsure how I feel about that one. He's a huge guy, and he's resisting. The police incapacitate him without using weapons or throwing punches, and he ends up passing away. It doesn't look like they used excessive force to me to be honest, but I don't know. I mean, you can kill a person with a taser or by tackling them. I see it as an unfortunate incident more than anything. They could have let up a little, but I don't think they thought they were killing him.

[Omnizoa]

I think that notion is absolutely absurd. Mental. It's okay to kill someone just because there's even the smallest possibility they could be killed themselves? There's a possibility in every situation they could be killed themselves. They should know how to act and what is acceptable. I just don't know how some of the videos I have seen can be justified in any way. Sorry.
Same.

[Guaporense]

Nobody though that almost everybody killed by the police are MEN!? That's bias!

Men's lives matter!

[Guaporense]

This is what I mean, you honestly think that there isn't a racial problem here? To me this seems part of the problem.

Well, according to a study by Fryer, on 1,500 police killings from 2000 to 2015, there was no bias against Blacks in shootings. There was a small bias against Blacks in terms of other responses (arrests, pepper spray, etc), but that bias was about 20%, which is smaller than one might think considering blacks are 700% more likely than non-blacks to engage in violent crime (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0). It's a rational response although politically in incorrect.

Overall the main problem is that police in the US is too violent, killing 1,000 people a year, of which 1/4 are blacks. In other developed countries the police is much less violent than in the US, I already explained that in Germany the "execution" rate is 2% of the US, Canada, which is a more similar country, has 10 times less police "executions" per capita. So I don't think police violence against blacks is the main issue but police violence in general.

[Guaporense]

The girlfriend has said that her BF told the officer he had a gun, and reached for his wallet in his back pocket. Just think about that. A terrible tragedy though.

I think there should be some sort of education in order to get a driver's license on how to act when being pulled over. Anyone being pulled over should turn their vehicle off, put their hands on the dash, shut up and wait for instructions.

Now that's where one should disagree. Police shouldn't be crapping their pants every time they pull over a car in the first place. US police appears to be truly dangerous. Which is pretty twisted since they are supposed to be the ones protecting us: civilians shouldn't be afraid of the police lIke jews were afraid of the gestapo.

They should be more reasonable although maybe making it slightly more difficult for get guns would reduce these numbers? I understand that people have the right to have guns but one should be required to prove a certain competence (gun license) and good legal record before being able to buy a gun. This way police wouldn't be so afraid of civilians pulling the guns on them. It looks like civil war!

[Friendly Mushroom!]

http://ktla.com/2016/07/15/homeless-teen-bikes-six-hours-to-get-to-college-sleeps-in-tent/

[Sexy Celebrity]

2 Baton Rouge cops killed. Multiple shot. Gunman still at large.

[matt72582]

I'm a little surprised this happened with the police already on high alert from the shooting that just took place in Baton Rouge.

Orlando, Baton Rouge, St. Paul, Dallas, Nice, Turkey, Baton Rouge...

[gandalf26]

How can you defend against it though if some nut decides to go on a suicidal rampage? (answer: you cant)

[False Writer]

3 officers dead and 3 wounded in Baton Rouge.

All this is doing is putting the police more on edge and practically instigating them to freak out and shoot anyone that even looks remotely dangerous.

The only thing BLM has succeeded in doing is spreading more violence and hate across America.

[Omnizoa]

3 officers dead and 3 wounded in Baton Rouge.

All this is doing is putting the police more on edge and practically instigating them to freak out and shoot anyone that even looks remotely dangerous.

The only thing BLM has succeeded in doing is spreading more violence and hate across America.
W-whut? Are we blaming BLM for violent criminals?

[cricket]

W-whut? Are we blaming BLM for violent criminals?

There are chants and signs calling for violence against police at some of their rallies.

[False Writer]

W-whut? Are we blaming BLM for violent criminals?

Not necessarily violent criminals, but for encouraging violence against police yes.

[Omnizoa]

There are chants and signs calling for violence against police at some of their rallies.
I was not aware of that.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I was not aware of that.

There's A LOT you're not aware of.

[Captain Spaulding]

There's A LOT you're not aware of.

Like whether or not he/she/it/anime character/alien/whatever has a penis.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Like whether or not he has a penis.

I don't think even he or she knows that!

[Omnizoa]

I don't think even he or she knows that!
Oh... I am intimately aware.

[Guaporense]

I think my earlier comment never eliminating murder is evidence enough of what I think of "utopia". We're not talking about ENFORCING oppression by outlawing certain words, we're talking about REDUCING oppression through a peer mentality. Don't tell me social constructs like slavery are a natural product of human nature that we can only suppress and funnel into other destructive behaviors, we need to consciously uncouple our word associations.

Native Americans are not Indians.

"Gay" is not a pejorative.

"Black" is an insufficient descriptor, and worse, a damaging generalization of character.

The term "black" in your example doesn't exist to offer a vivid retelling of a story, it's an attempt to characterize the attacker in a manner that evokes a specific stereotype in our minds, as a means to relate the story.

It may be unintentional, even innocent, but this is exactly how segregation begins: Someone does something noteworthy, they're referred to as different in some way, the listeners see the event echoed in other areas of their lives and pick up familiar patterns and, perhaps without even realizing, begin drawing subconcious associations between that thing that makes that person different and the otherwise irrelevant action they've seen.

And that's where you get stereotypes like grape soda, chicken, and waffles. Those new assumed differences become just another boundary separating you from an otherwise identical person with just a different shade of skin and serve as a catalyst for further speculative judgments.

I'm merely suggesting a way of thinking that disrupts this socially destructive spiral, by recognizing the problem and presenting it as a deterrant to others who would fall into that trap. Outright bans, as you seem to think I'm suggesting, are unhelpful by comparison.

In Brazil I noticed that terms that would be regarded as racist in the US are used frequently but without racial meaning. People in Brazil use the N word to refer to persons in general and this includes even university professors. In Brazil there is no racism, at least not in a systematic way, although there exists prejudice regarding a person's appearance but thats mostly because of social class and not "race", well most Brazilians are so mixed that one cannot even label a race to then. That doesn't mean that police is not brutal as in preparations for the Olympics the police is wiping out many gangs in Rio through executions.

[Topsy]

not a shooting,but news here now is an american police man punching a woman in the face and throwing her on the ground infront of her child when arresting her.breaking her nose and ruining her teeth. coincidently retired the following year :rolleyes:
american cops sure are something!

[CosmicRunaway]

While I was on my break at work this morning, I saw a report on the News about a man being shot by police while lying on his back with his hands in the air (http://secondnexus.com/social/black-man-shot-hands-up/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_16fa29d04f4511e6a541a52d0f601bf9).

The man was a therapist who was attempting to calm down an autistic patient who had wandered out into the street. Someone called the police thinking the autistic man had a gun, but it was clearly a toy car. The victim was complying with police orders to lay on his back, and he kept telling the officers that the other man just had a toy car, and that he was trying to calm him down.

Yet he got shot anyway, and when he asked the officer why, the officer allegedly said "I don't know".

The article I linked to doesn't seen to have the same video I saw on the News, where an onlooker filmed the victim laying on the ground with his hands in the air, explaining the situation to police. The whole thing is ridiculous, and I hope he is able to file a lawsuit against the officer who shot him for no reason.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Disgusting. That's why people hate the police. And see -- they go after the mentally ill.

[Daniel M]

Having seen the video it just makes absolutely no sense that the guy would get shot, none at all. The police do not seem to know how to deal with the simplest of situations normally, they think shooting people is normal, they get to a situation and are ready to pull the trigger straight away, then he says "I don't know" as to why he did it... what?

[Captain Steel]

This one's just unbelievable. Okay, even if there was the suspected presence of a weapon at the scene from the cops' POV - why shoot the guy on his back with his hands up after he's explained he's a therapist and the other guy is an autistic patient?

You'd think at this time police would realize they are in the spotlight (yes, they're also in the crosshairs, but a guy on his back his hands up is not a threat even if you're nervous). They should be acting extra carefully in every situation - so how do they just shoot an unarmed man on the ground who's got his hands up and is communicating the situation calmly & rationally... and then say they don't know why the did it???

I'm glad this man's alive... and he better be a millionaire at the end of all this!

[Sexy Celebrity]

The cop should be arrested and charged. Nobody else could get away with shooting somebody for no reason.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26623&stc=1&d=1471291712

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26625&stc=1&d=1471292174

YOU FOUND IT:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26624&stc=1&d=1471291818

PM me.

[Omnizoa]

when he asked the officer why, the officer allegedly said "I don't know".
*shoots officer*


No seriously, **** that guy, that's beyond infuriating. Kick his ass off the force, fire him, and when he asks why say, "I don't know". Also kick his teeth out for good measure.

Anyone else believe me yet about the police training ****? 'Cause their guns shouldn't have even been IN THE AIR, and even then they got bean bag rounds for situations like this.

[CosmicRunaway]

When I first heard the reporter describing the incident, I thought the cops shot the autistic man. That would have been terrible and just as tragic, but at least it would be slightly understandable from the policeman's perspective, since a passer-by reported that the toy car was a gun, and whether or not you could clearly see what was in his hands from that distance is debatable. But the fact that they shot the therapist who was on his back, trying to comply with police requests while also trying to calm the distressed patient is just...insane

The officer having no reason to back up why he discharged his firearm just makes it even worse. If the therapist was a white man, would he still have gotten shot for no reason? Was the officer trying to shoot the autistic man, but missed? It's no wonder why fewer and fewer Americans have faith in their police force.

[matt72582]

Having seen the video it just makes absolutely no sense that the guy would get shot, none at all. The police do not seem to know how to deal with the simplest of situations normally, they think shooting people is normal, they get to a situation and are ready to pull the trigger straight away, then he says "I don't know" as to why he did it... what?

It's always been this way, even worse in the past. But there were no cell phones with videos.

[Omnizoa]

It's always been this way, even worse in the past. But there were no cell phones with videos.
This.

[Captain Steel]

What's also disturbing (based on what I could tell from the video) - this didn't appear to be a case where there was one lone cop on the scene, but it looks like there were multiple cops responding. I guess it could be argued a number of ways, but it seems like that would make someone less likely to shoot at an unarmed person on the ground who is not resisting and complying with all instructions.

[CosmicRunaway]

I guess it could be argued a number of ways, but it seems like that would make someone less likely to shoot at an unarmed person on the ground who is not resisting and complying with all instructions.
One would think so. But that's apparently not the case for this officer.

I'm really curious to find out what disappointing justification they're going to come up with when this whole thing settles down.

[Topsy]

I'm glad this man's alive... and he better be a millionaire at the end of all this!

but it would be the taxpayers paying him though,wouldnt it?

american police are way too aggressive,even when they`re not shooting people.
Ive watched several cops reality shows,and even then they willingly,on tv,showcase that. they never seem to try to calm the situation down but make it worse by being overly aggressive,shouting and being physically harsh.

[cricket]

He was reaching for a gun in the sky!

[gandalf26]

but it would be the taxpayers paying him though,wouldnt it?

american police are way too aggressive,even when they`re not shooting people.
Ive watched several cops reality shows,and even then they willingly,on tv,showcase that. they never seem to try to calm the situation down but make it worse by being overly aggressive,shouting and being physically harsh.

This basically.

Why is running away from the Police a death sentence?
Why is getting into a physical confrontation with Police a death sentence? (due to small % chance that offender will go for the gun)?
Why do people's pets have to die in a Police/Swat raid?
Why is it ok for Police to plant evidence and coerce confessions from simple minded children? (making a murderer) (the central park five)

The real reason that people are getting so pissed off though is the lack of oversight/protection of Police officers who have clearly commited criminal acts. It's only in recent years where more and more things are being filmed that have FORCED the prosecution of Police officers.

Now of course there are 1 million or so Police in the US and probably 950,000+ are just as pissed off at the stupidity of the 50,000 as the rest of the public and many good things that Police do on a day to day that unfortunately don't get all the media attention, but their attitude needs to change aswell, the days of "we don't rat on other cops", or "we lie to protect our brotherhood" are over, bad eggs need to be rooted out from within.

[CosmicRunaway]

He was reaching for a gun in the sky!
Maybe one of the clouds was shaped like a gun?

https://tarpon.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/gun-cloud.jpg

[Friendly Mushroom!]

Maybe one of the clouds was shaped like a gun?

https://tarpon.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/gun-cloud.jpg

That's funny. I especially love the top right corner.

[Yoda]

He was reaching for a gun in the sky!
This is gold.

[Friendly Mushroom!]

I think this warrants a decision here-

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem%3fnetworkId=4595&site=.news&zone=story&zoneUrl=url%253Dstory&zoneKeys=s1%253Dstory&env=&pageKeyValues=prtnr%253Dsf%253Bteam%253Dsf%253Bconf%253Dnfc%253Bdvsn%253Dncw%253Bplyr%253Dblaine_gab bert%253Bplyr%253Dcolin_kaepernick&sr=amp?client=safari