He sums it up perfectly: no fucking accountability whatsoever: NEVER admit you're wrong, NEVER admit a cop is capable of wrongdoing, lie about what all our eyes just told us. It never fucking stops. They're worse than politicians., and the only voice they will trust is their sociopath scum union leaders. How can a community trust you when everyone with eyes sees a cold-blooded murder right on camera and only police officers --all of them at once--- say "Nope, by the book. Move along." all the time, every time. They have no fucking business asking why people are mad when that is their platform. Change your ways, completely, or continue to earn the public's scorn. You are held to a higher scrutiny for obvious reasons.
And then you get something like this: This is officer Montrell Jackson, with his kid. He was one of the cops killed in Baton Rouge. This was a post he made on the 8th of the month during other protests.
Well, this won't end well... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/off-duty-nypd-cop-suv-strikes-pedestrians-death-williamsburg-brooklyn/ I can't help but think that "justice" will move swiftly in this case and this cop will be thrown to the wolves like a virgin to a volcano.
State of the Serious Thread (Meta) - Just a couple quick thoughts on the state of this thread. Its great that its made it to over 250 pages and over 5000 posts. Lots of great discussion here, even if it gets tense and emotional sometimes. Yes, its caused some people to leave the board, but those people are weak-minded and should be paid little attention. For everyone else - lets adhere to the following general guidelines going forward to make sure the quality of the discussion stays at a respectable level - 1) A link to a news article or editorial is not an argument or a point of view if you didnt write it yourself. Posting that in response to an ongoing discussion without further explanation or elaboration on your part is lazy and adds nothing. Feel free to post a link to something you find interesting or noteworthy, but you better be able to explain why you are doing so and explain your thoughts on the subject. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been guilty of such things myself. 2) Sophistry and straw-man arguments tend to get out of hand sometimes. Its unfair to either side of a particular topic to misrepresent their point of view unless its explicitly stated and its discredits the level of integrity that we all try to maintain on the board. 3) Emotive discussions are natural, especially with the current state of many different subjects. But ad hominem and personal attacks have not and will not be tolerated. We have been good about this for the most part, so this is more of a reminder. If a particular subject or point of view is upsetting or frustrating for you, thats perfectly fine. What is not fine is lashing out at others because of it. Express your disagreements constructively, otherwise self-moderate and disengage from the thread for a day or two and jump back in. 4) Moderation. We (the mods) have varying degrees of opinions as well. We try to make every attempt to make sure there is no dog-piling on a particular person for their beliefs or viewpoints. If you feel you are being unfairly targeted, reach out to any of us. We will back you up in any way we can to make sure the discussion stays fair and honest. If you feel you are being unfairly targeted by a mod, reach out to another one or Nett/Binary with those concerns. Ill let other mods chime in with any other thoughts. If not, carry on everyone.
From the article, "Witnesses said they had the SUV surrounded and were shocked to see Batka allegedly try to use the fact he's an officer to get away, CBS New York reported. " This officer is part of the problem. He becomes a cop and now thinks that the rules somehow don't apply to him. If there was a perfect world, the judge would get 4 members of the families of the people he hit drunk, allow them to get behind the wheel on a closed course, stick blinders on this officer's head, and wait ten minutes. If he's lucky, he'll get away with only a maiming.
The fourth officer accused in the Freddie Gray case has just been acquitted on all charges. http://www.wbaltv.com/news/verdict-expected-in-lt-brian-rice-case/40759058 That's now 3 acquittals and one hung jury. That $6.4 million awarded to Gray's family seems it was a bit premature, perhaps the prosecutor should cut her loses and drop the remaining cases.
Perfect. Thank you, Toytoy. This is an example of what Juice was talking about: - (I'm assuming) You did not write the article that link references. - It is not immediately pertinent to whatever discussion is happening in the thread right now. - There are none of your own thoughts added for context, and you don't appear to be bringing up anything you wish to discuss. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. If you read Juice's post at the top of the page, you can see that we're trying to curtail this kind of thing. An interesting article that you think people might wish to read but doesn't need to be discussed can go in the Permanent Thread section, under the Crazy Headlines thread. Moving forward, if we could stick to Juice's rules it would be greatly appreciated.
Nope, I did not. We had been, within the past few posts, discussing police brutality. I linked to an article of an officer being acquitted of police brutality in one of the most high profile cases. That's not pertinent? Is there a minimum word requirement?
There is not, and certainly your post linked an interesting article relevant to things that have been discussed. It also walked the razor's edge between contributing your thoughts and merely linking an article. So, of course, there is grey area. Like Juice said - the mods have to be careful and if you feel like something's been pointed out incorrectly please question it. I'm being heavy handed right now so that going forward people have a very clear idea what we ARE trying to encourage vs. what we are trying to move away from.
That's kind of an awkward analogy, but let's say teenagers or other victims of drunk driving were somehow killing each other at rates far greater than actual drunk drivers (in even more brutal ways). Would you consider it reasonable to question why MADD never even acknowledged the problem? If you're talking about this board and thread, I haven't read anyone saying that, and I certainly haven't. I am saying that BLM specifically doesn't seem to care enough about black-on-black murder/single mother rates to mention it because...they haven't mentioned it. There are plenty of black people, easily found on Youtube, who care deeply and are explicitly anti-BLM precisely because they don't think BLM cares, either. I've parroted much of what they say in my posts. Sounds pretty straightforward and logical, to me (also interesting how you glossed over the victims of those hypothetical crimes, who would most likely be black). Briefly putting aside the reasons why someone's community is poor and crime-ridden, once you're in that community, your odds of all kinds of police interactions go up. Pretty sure that's universal. I've never denied there are racist reasons why those community conditions exist, but I also think that single motherhood, drive-by shootings and premeditated child murder play a part, and that anyone who denies or ignores these things is not telling the whole story. At the very least, it's all a teensy bit related. I don't get to assign meaning? Alrighty. Can I still question a narrative that doesn't add up to the facts as I understand them, and a group that often seems to intentionally have tunnel vision on a complex issue?
BLM strikes me as a narrowly focused group, like a breast cancer charity. They know all cancer is a problem, but they are drawing specific attention to a type of cancer. The idea that somehow their movement isn't legitimate because it doesn't address all cancer strikes me as as a logical fallacy. Like all groups, I am sure it is rife with good intentions executed by complete assholes. I can also say that the with the mandatory sentencing and quality of life upon release a lot of black guys face, it makes sense for them to go down a cop killer. Again, we declared war and threatened their very survival and Liberty with absolutely zero accountability. Why we thought their reaction would be any less violent seems ignorant. Inside, where he will spend the majority of his life, he will be treated very differently now. He probably sees his attack as something akin to martyrdom. Not condoning it, it's fucking terrible, but given those choices it makes a degree of sense.
I can't answer for Audrey, but no, I wouldn't consider it reasonable. If you state that you want to address issue X, when why are you beholden to address other issues that are only tangentially (if that) related to X?
Like Audrey's, I think that's a similarly awkward analogy, but it seems like they're making a disproportionate amount of noise in relation to how threatening the cancer is. Would be like someone going off on prostate cancer when there was an epidemic of childhood brain cancer. Or something. And I feel like my original question still applies: let's say the specific cancer they're drawing attention to has killed almost 600 people so far this year, but the people afflicted by this cancer have straight up murdered each other at far greater rate, including children. Would that not be the equivalent of hanging around radioactive material but exclusively complaining about the cancer? If a black person believes that 100 per cent of the time a cop stops, harasses or shoots a black person, it is only because the cop is the racist, I very much understand him wanting to respond with violence towards cops. What I don't understand is why that would make him leave a woman he impregnated, do a drive-by or kill a kid because of gang beef, since all those things indirectly and directly attract a police presence (understandably). The fact you and others continually ignore this aspect of my argument makes me think I have a point. I don't agree that they're only tangentially related.
Dude, it's not how bad cancer is. It's how bad the cancer that took your family member is. It's not the same thing applied in general. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
If I believed that, I would avoid police entirely, which may be the case in some neighborhoods in Chicago, for example. I would imagine that the people who believe that are not inherently violent, but consider the police at worst an antagonist, at best useless. I can't imagine many people in those neighborhoods view the police as an asset, at any rate. In the interest of a relevant argument, did the Baton Rouge shooter do any of the things you mentioned? I couldn't find his Wikipedia page, which I think is a good thing. Also, how does leaving a woman he impregnated attract police presence? To clarify, I think the Baton Rouge shooter knew he was going to jail for a long time and he wasn't exactly going to have his life laid out for him when he got out. Why he chose to kill people, I will never understand. But, in the mindset of going to jail, I imagine he thought he didn't have much to lose and would earn semi-martyr status among the people in his world: people who are openly hostile to and often victimized by police. The rest of the world glares in horror, but in his world, he did what they dreamed of doing: exacting retribution on a group that fucked with them, more or less, with impunity.
Wait, I'll contribute something of substance in addition to snark. Another thing that bothers me when people talk about "black on black crime" is how ickily othering it always sounds, as if this is this unique cultural/racial thing that can't be seen anywhere else in this country/world/species. As if these same people who wag their fingers at it aren't the same people who talk about guns and violence as an inherently American value, and glorify violence when it comes to war and pop culture, and jizz all over themselves over their vision of the country returning to the wild west where every man is for himself and walks around with a gun slung across his back, and relish the thought of bombing the shit out of people. As if inner city black communities are the only places in this country where people commit unspeakable, horrific acts of violence towards each other. As if whenever there's an act of violence committed by a white person they aren't grasping at straws to make excuses for why it might be at all justified. As if they aren't the same kinds of people that shrug their shoulders at the price we pay for freedom whenever there's some mass shooting. But, no, those same types of people get all pearl-clutchy at driveby shootings.
Right, and if you're a black person in the U.S., and a 'cancer' took your family member, or shot up your house, or abandoned your family member after getting her pregnant, the likelihood that 'cancer' was another black person absolutely dwarfs the likelihood it was a racist cop. And by doing those things, that 'cancer' is only ensuring that the other 'cancer' (racist cops) will show up. Not entirely sure what you're arguing, but I'm puzzled as to why you would mention Chicago to back it. There are areas there where the murder rate rivals literal war zones, and they are overwhelmingly populated by black people, correct? Seems to me those areas need a bigger police presence more than any other. I mean, unless those areas have a high percentage of fatherless young men whose gangs taught them to never, ever snitch, or else their house will be shot up or their younger brother will be murdered. If that was the case, it could be problematic, and I would understand them not viewing police as an asset. I don't see the connection of your Baton Rouge shooter question with what I was saying, so please clarify if you care to. Also, relevant. Dunno who you're railing against in your last post, Audrey, but you didn't describe me.
Is there anyone who strongly disagrees that it is essentially a socioeconomic issue where people in inner city schools grow up in a cycle where the schools are underfunded and therefore they don't get the education required to "rise up" and the majority of people who do have money in those areas are getting it through gang/drug activity? And the reason the inner cities have higher black populations is due to systemic racism throughout this country's history. And once you're in those areas it's extremely difficult to get out because of the first point above. So yes there are internal issues in many communities that we are discussing, but Saying fix your own community sounds really nice until you try to get into how to fix the communities. Money for education would help, but it's hard to come by, especially in those places. (Yes that was a very brief overview which I can get more into lately, but basically how I see it as a basic concept)
http://gawker.com/gop-congressman-non-white-sub-groups-have-contribute-1783878469 I have as many problems with gawker as anyone, not posting for the article but just for the video clip in there since I'm on my phone and can't find it anywhere. This is a republican congressman defending the overwhelming whiteness of his party by stating that "no other sub group of humans have contributed as much" to society overall so therefore it just makes sense to have so many white republican congressman. Not saying democrats are perfect or republicans are bad. But when people talk about systemic racism, this is some of what they are referring to. that attitude inevitably makes its way into laws, since white people have contributed so much more then sure they should get cut some slack here and there.