PDA

View Full Version : Southpaw


The Unreasoner
04-08-2015, 09:04 AM
Explain this. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0)

GonzoTheGreat
04-08-2015, 09:16 AM
That's just like the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, only someone was impolite enough to video it. If people simply minded their own business, then things like this wouldn't happen.

Kimon
04-08-2015, 10:18 AM
This point could have been made far more tactfully, indeed this point was made very much like we oft accuse him of making his points.

Terez
04-08-2015, 10:32 AM
This point could have been made far more tactfully, indeed this point was made very much like we oft accuse him of making his points.
This. Unreasoner has apparently let Southpaw get under his skin.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-08-2015, 10:42 AM
This. Unreasoner has apparently let Southpaw get under his skin.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, am I right?

The Unreasoner
04-08-2015, 10:47 AM
This. Unreasoner has apparently let Southpaw get under his skin.
Not nearly as deep as I get under yours. There's no heat here, only venom.


You...

ETA:
And I always stick around to press my points, even engage in reasoned debate.

Davian93
04-08-2015, 11:02 AM
Watching the video, its clear to me that the officer was right to feel threatened by this unprovoked attack by a suspect (who was likely armed and dangerous).

Oh wait, I had it playing in reverse and he was actually running away when he was gunned down for no reason. Never mind then.

Terez
04-08-2015, 11:05 AM
There's no heat here, only venom.
I don't believe you because your attempt at a point here is downright idiotic and you're usually a little smarter than that. Highly suggestive of emotion interfering with logic.

Now I sound like Naz. God help us.

Nazbaque
04-08-2015, 11:08 AM
I don't believe you because your attempt at a point here is downright idiotic and you're usually a little smarter than that. Highly suggestive of emotion interfering with logic.

Now I sound like Naz. God help us.

Does that mean that I win the who gets deepest under the skin of others contest?

Terez
04-08-2015, 11:18 AM
Does that mean that I win the who gets deepest under the skin of others contest?
If it makes you happy. We all know how much you need it.

Nazbaque
04-08-2015, 11:19 AM
If it makes you happy. We all know how much you need it.

I thought being happy was what everyone needs.

Terez
04-08-2015, 11:20 AM
Some need it more than others.

Nazbaque
04-08-2015, 11:23 AM
Some need it more than others.

But isn't that simply because they have so much less than others?

Terez
04-08-2015, 11:52 AM
But isn't that simply because they have so much less than others?
Yes dear, that was the point.

Davian93
04-08-2015, 11:55 AM
You two secretly love each other...hence all this tension between you.

Terez
04-08-2015, 11:59 AM
You two secretly love each other...hence all this tension between you.
And you're in the seventh grade. It explains so much. :)

Nazbaque
04-08-2015, 11:59 AM
You two secretly love each other...hence all this tension between you.

Not love, lust. And it really isn't all that secret.

Davian93
04-08-2015, 12:00 PM
And you're in the seventh grade. It explains so much. :)

I wish...I'd have to pass 6th grade first and, to be honest, Algebra is really hard.:(

Daekyras
04-08-2015, 12:42 PM
I wish...I'd have to pass 6th grade first and, to be honest, Algebra is really hard.:(

I can help you with that dav.

you see the letters? they represent numbers.

They are called variables. Variables like the ones that the lawyers will talk about when the piece of crap in the original posted video is aquitted.

Davian93
04-08-2015, 12:46 PM
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/7/sc-officer-charged-for-shooting-black-man.html

The "best" part is where the video shows him planting the "stolen stun gun" next to the body right before the next officer arrives on the scene.

Stay classy, you murderous son of a bitch.

Nazbaque
04-08-2015, 10:40 PM
After the first time something was nagging at me about that video so I rewatched it and now I'm sure. That officer was afraid. You can hear it in his voice. Now if he realized that what he had just done was very wrong, one would expect him to be afraid, but I don't think it had enough time to sink in. No, I think he pulled that trigger in fear. If I counted right he fired eight shots. How did he miss that many? Hands shaking with fear. Now I'm not saying he had any realistic cause to be afraid. Technically posible but highly unlikely especially when you watch their body language. My point is actually in the other direction. This man who was afraid in that situation is a coward of such magnitude that he should not have had access to a letter opener much less a firearm. It's people that kill people, but guns make it so easy that even a coward like this can just shoot someone in the back in broad daylight. How did someone like this get into a uniform of a police officer? The people who are given the duty of upholding the law should be exemplary in following it and thus their failures in doing so should be more severely punished. After all in addition to what ever laws they break they also betray their duty to protect those laws.

Southpaw2012
04-09-2015, 02:15 AM
The right decision has been made. The cop was fired and charged with murder. This was murder and the facts prove it. If you're trying to compare it to Fergusson, then that's just ignorant.

Nazbaque
04-09-2015, 03:37 AM
The right decision has been made. The cop was fired and charged with murder. This was murder and the facts prove it. If you're trying to compare it to Fergusson, then that's just ignorant.

Southpaw: 1 - Unreasoner: How embarassing (0)

The Unreasoner
04-09-2015, 04:02 AM
The right decision has been made. The cop was fired and charged with murder. This was murder and the facts prove it. If you're trying to compare it to Fergusson, then that's just ignorant.

We don't really know what happened in Ferguson. My point isn't to equate the two, but to ask about police violence, racial tensions, and burden of proof in general. There is a pattern of abuse here. Now, how many cases are like this, and how many are like Ferguson is claimed to have been...that's a legitimate conversation to have.


If you need a too stupid/didn't read version:
Where would we be without the video? Where would that cop be? What if the video was simply more ambiguous?

Terez
04-09-2015, 04:10 AM
It's more like Southpaw 0.05, Unreasoner 0. Unreasoner had a point; he just didn't make it: the point is that video recordings of this type of thing are rare, and pretending like it's not a glimpse of an ongoing problem is, as Southpaw said, just ignorant. There is a reason why so many black people tend to believe the worst in stories like these (minus the video). We still don't know for sure what happened with Mike Brown or Trayvon Martin. We do know what happened with Eric Garner, John Crawford, Tamir Rice, and many other cases where no arrests were made.

PS: Cross-posted with Unreasoner. (I took a long time to write it.)

Davian93
04-09-2015, 07:24 AM
The right decision has been made. The cop was fired and charged with murder. This was murder and the facts prove it. If you're trying to compare it to Fergusson, then that's just ignorant.

Hmm...what's different here? Oh right, there's damning video evidence of the misconduct. Otherwise, they'd have closed ranks just like they did in Ferguson and so many other places.

And you would, of course, be aware that there is a huge difference between an indictment and a conviction for murder. Let's wait to see how a "jury of his peers" feels about his actions.

Nazbaque
04-09-2015, 07:26 AM
It's more like Southpaw 0.05, Unreasoner 0. Unreasoner had a point; he just didn't make it: the point is that video recordings of this type of thing are rare, and pretending like it's not a glimpse of an ongoing problem is, as Southpaw said, just ignorant. There is a reason why so many black people tend to believe the worst in stories like these (minus the video). We still don't know for sure what happened with Mike Brown or Trayvon Martin. We do know what happened with Eric Garner, John Crawford, Tamir Rice, and many other cases where no arrests were made.

PS: Cross-posted with Unreasoner. (I took a long time to write it.)

My point was that Unreasoner posted the whole thing as an attack on Southpaw. Even if in low evidence cases he is a bit too obstinate this time he was accused of a flaw he doesn't have. I just gave him credit for that.

As for the other cases there is a bit of military wisdom that can be converted to problem solving in a more general(yay pun!) sense: "Know your enemy". Just saying that they are racist doesn't get you anywhere. How they are racist is already seen in the nature of these cases but a closer look might prove illuminating in the important point. Why are they racist? Understanding their reasons is vital to correcting the issue. I labeled the culprit of this case as a coward as he gave into fear, but why was he afraid at all. I do not say this to suggest that the fear could be legitimate because I'm fairly certain it can't, but even so understanding that fear is important. Have more of these culprits somehow been induced to fear the people who then become their victims? Are they paranoid cowards rather than just petty minded angry bigots?

Daekyras
04-09-2015, 08:14 AM
And you would, of course, be aware that there is a huge difference between an indictment and a conviction for murder. Let's wait to see how a "jury of his peers" feels about his actions.

That's where the "variables" come in. He will get off. what a beautiful system of justice. :mad:

Davian93
04-09-2015, 08:19 AM
That's where the "variables" come in. He will get off. what a beautiful system of justice. :mad:

My prediction is that "at best" he will end up pleaing to some much lesser charge like "2nd degree involuntary manslaughter" and end up serving 24 months in protected custody where he ends up getting place on probation 6 months into his sentence instead because of good behavior and lack of space at the local prison.

The Unreasoner
04-09-2015, 08:22 AM
That's where the "variables" come in. He will get off. what a beautiful system of justice. :mad:
Some letters are constants, not variables. And murder is murder.

Whatever flaws the American justice system has, this cop at least will fry. The political atmosphere will demand it, Right and Left. Though motives will vary.

Davian93
04-09-2015, 08:25 AM
Some letters are constants, not variables. And murder is murder.

Whatever flaws the American justice system has, this cop at least will fry. The political atmosphere will demand it, Right and Left. Though motives will vary.

We'll see...we're gonna hear all about his "mental health issues" and how "he felt his life was threatened" and how he had been under some sort of "Depression" due to issues in his marriage or the impending birth of his 3rd kid or how he was beaten/abused as a child, etc etc.

"The video only showed the end, it doesn't show the horrible confrontation before hand and how there was a struggle over the cop's tazer or how he thought he saw a gun in the suspect's belt, etc etc etc"


Give it a few days.

Daekyras
04-09-2015, 09:37 AM
Some letters are constants, not variables.
.

I admit I'm not a fair with the American education system but...In sixth grade???

And nothing is constant.

GonzoTheGreat
04-09-2015, 10:56 AM
And nothing is constant.
As the saying goes: constants aren't, variables don't.

Southpaw2012
04-09-2015, 11:25 AM
We don't really know what happened in Ferguson. My point isn't to equate the two, but to ask about police violence, racial tensions, and burden of proof in general. There is a pattern of abuse here. Now, how many cases are like this, and how many are like Ferguson is claimed to have been...that's a legitimate conversation to have.


If you need a too stupid/didn't read version:
Where would we be without the video? Where would that cop be? What if the video was simply more ambiguous?



The problem people make is that they assume that every time a white man (whether a cop or not) kills a black man, it's automatically because of racism. Does racism play a role in certain instances? Sure, but not all of them, but the media tends to focus in on these issues. Black cops have killed unarmed white men before, but it doesn't make national news. Instead of jumping to conclusions and blaming racism to get national attention, let the facts speak for themselves. There is pretty much zero evidence that Ferguson shooting was race based. Not only was it not race based, but justified. New York incident? Who knows, but it sounds like a bad police procedure. Doesn't mean it was race based. Was this South Carolina race based? Again, race baiters will say yes, but this cop could just be some scum bag wanting to show his power. The Left needs to calm down because it's creating a bigger racial divide every time white people are trashed for stuff that isn't because of race.

Terez
04-09-2015, 11:38 AM
The funny thing about the whole "race-baiting" phenomenon on the right is that it's a bunch of white people trying to make themselves out as the victims when the only inconvenience to them is having to hear about stuff they don't want to hear about in the news. The horror! Meanwhile black communities, segregated by discriminatory housing policies and practices over the course of more than a century, have been victims of police harassment and violence this whole time. All they want is for white people to recognize that there is a problem and help them do something about it. No one wants convictions for people who aren't guilty. They just want transparency, accountability, and due process. It's not much to ask. But god forbid you should have to listen.

Davian93
04-09-2015, 11:42 AM
There is pretty much zero evidence that Ferguson shooting was race based

You know, other than the Justice Dept report that stated that "Ferguson's approach to law enforcement both reflects and reinforces racial bias, including stereotyping. The harms of Ferguson's police and court practices are borne disproportionately by African Americans, and there is evidence that this is due in part to intentional discrimination on the basis of race."

Also...

"Nearly 90% of documented force used by FPD officers was used against African Americans.

"EVERY canine bite incident for which information is available, the person bitten was African American."

"Our investigation indicates that this disproportionate burden on African Americans cannot be explained by any difference in the rate at which people of different races violate the law. Rather, our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisoers and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control...This evidence of bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistant racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates the discriminatory effects of Ferguson's conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Bolded emphasis added by me.

Source: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

So, you were saying something about no racial issues being involved in the Ferguson incident?

Again, go get your fucking shinebox.

Davian93
04-09-2015, 11:45 AM
The Left needs to calm down because it's creating a bigger racial divide every time white people are trashed for stuff that isn't because of race.


Ahh...the classic racist argument of "You're racist for saying something about our racism"


What a new way to argue that...never had that one said before.

Then, of course, the response will be, "I'm not racist, I have plenty of friends who are black and they agree with me"

Davian93
04-09-2015, 12:11 PM
More from the Justice Dept report...

The following emails were illustrative of the racial bias within the city and Ferguson PD:

A November 2008 email stated that President Barack Obama would not be President for very long because "what black man holds a steady job for four years?"

A March 2010 email mocked African Americans throuch speech and familial stereotypes, using a story involving child support. One line from the email read: "I be so glad that dis be my last child support payment! Month after month, year after year, all dose payments!"

An April 2011 email depicted President Barack Obama as a chimpanzee.

A May 2011 email stated: "An African American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from. The hospital said, 'Crimestoppers.'"

A June 2011 email described a man seeking to obtain "welfare" for his dogs because they are "mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddies are."

An October 2011 email included a photo of a bare-chested group of dancing women, apparently in Africa, with the caption, "Michelle Obama's High School Reunion."

A December 2011 email included jokes that are based on offensive stereotypes about Muslims.

All occurred during work hours on work computers. But yes, no racism at all is present in that department and there are no underlying racial issues in the United States...especially in southern states (Missouri is basically the South for non-Americans even though it stayed in the Union during the Civil War).

eht slat meit
04-09-2015, 12:18 PM
The problem here is that Southpaw is addressing the Michael Brown Shooting, while Davian is addressing the issues within the Ferguson PD. They're not one and the same, though clearly both have influenced each other.

Davian93
04-09-2015, 12:26 PM
The problem here is that Southpaw is addressing the Michael Brown Shooting, while Davian is addressing the issues within the Ferguson PD. They're not one and the same, though clearly both have influenced each other.

The issues within the Police Dept there are a big part of what led to that confrontation on both sides. The police acted innappropriately in a systematic fashion over years (if not decades) and this tainted any such confrontation for both Brown and the officer who killed him. Thus, to say that that racial bias didn't play a major part in the shooting is just silly.

eht slat meit
04-09-2015, 12:32 PM
Thus, to say that that racial bias didn't play a major part in the shooting is just silly.

"We don't really know what happened in Ferguson"

"We still don't know for sure what happened with Mike Brown "

Selected contextually relevant quotes from this page alone. We don't know. There was no camera in place at the right time. We only know what the officer tells us, and obviously he has a bias, though it should be noted no evidence was presented to convict him.

So, the question is: How do YOU know what nobody else does?

GonzoTheGreat
04-09-2015, 12:36 PM
The problem here is that Southpaw is addressing the Michael Brown Shooting, while Davian is addressing the issues within the Ferguson PD. They're not one and the same, though clearly both have influenced each other.
The shooting was just a feature in the behaviour of the PD.

Why did the police officer decide to drive back to order those two young men off the street?
Not because they were impeding traffic; after all, he'd just easily passed them.

Why did the police officer decide to bang his car door into the legs of one of those young men?
Not because he wanted to open it; even as a young child I knew already that doors don't open if something (or someone) blocks them, and I can't imagine this police officer being that much more ignorant than I was a three year old.

Both types of behaviour (that then led directly to the drawing of the gun) can't be explained by assuming reasonable police procedure, but they can be explained by assuming racism was involved.

And, in the case that this thread is about, I've just learned that the person who made the video first tried to tell the police that he was a witness, and only handed the video to the media after the police had frightened him away. Which, I think people will agree, is not really what one would want the police to do in the case of a killing.

Kimon
04-09-2015, 12:54 PM
There is another systemic problem, besides racism, that seems often to be at play in all of these incidents. Police have been trained to use excessive force in too many of these confrontations. Training methods and protocols for conflict resolution would seem to be an easier and more productive starting point, as would a shift away again from the use of more militarized equipment and militarized units, like SWAT. This is a far larger problem than just racism. Indeed, situations like this one in South Carolina seem more like a symptom, yes of racism also, but moreover of the militarization of what should have been peacekeepers.

Something needs to be done about these incidents where racism is clearly playing a significant part, but let's not overlook another pervasive problem by focusing only on this one symptom.

Crap like this needs to stop too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/24/new-aclu-report-takes-a-snapshot-of-police-militarization-in-the-united-states/

eht slat meit
04-09-2015, 01:03 PM
The shooting was just a feature in the behaviour of the PD.

I feel like that comment was some sick piece of bait, so I'm leaving it alone. Barely.

Why did the police officer decide to drive back to order those two young men off the street?
Not because they were impeding traffic; after all, he'd just easily passed them.

So he had to decide he was racist after he'd already passed them? No, what they were doing is actually wrong. You're not supposed to do it. I've been stopped by the cops for doing it where sidewalks were available. I can't say what happened from there. Why things went the way they did. NObody can.

The problem with the rest of what you are saying is that you are assuming that it had to be a> reasonable police procedure or b> racism.

Kimon has fairly well illustrated why that's wrong, with just ONE other possibility.

Another is that this escalated because Michael Brown knew perfectly well what he'd done and un/intentionally escalated a situation because of it.

Davian93
04-09-2015, 01:04 PM
"We don't really know what happened in Ferguson"

"We still don't know for sure what happened with Mike Brown "

Selected contextually relevant quotes from this page alone. We don't know. There was no camera in place at the right time. We only know what the officer tells us, and obviously he has a bias, though it should be noted no evidence was presented to convict him.

So, the question is: How do YOU know what nobody else does?

Occam's Razor tells us that the mentality of both individuals involved in that incident was likely affected by the long-term racial policies of that police dept. This incident didn't occur in a vacuum and those mentalities almost certainly played into both responses and actions of both Michael Brown and Officer Wilson during the confrontation.

fdsaf3
04-09-2015, 01:50 PM
Occam's Razor tells us that the mentality of both individuals involved in that incident was likely affected by the long-term racial policies of that police dept. This incident didn't occur in a vacuum and those mentalities almost certainly played into both responses and actions of both Michael Brown and Officer Wilson during the confrontation.

You're misstating Occam's Razor to naively oversimplify deeply complex issues of systemic racial bias. I get that you're trying to argue your point and defend what you perceive to be your side of this debate, but for me this strayed too far over the line of reasonableness.

Getting back to the discussion at hand, I have to admit that I'm only 22 pages into the Ferguson report. I have read the transcript of Darren Wilson from the grand jury proceedings; admittedly, it's been months since I've read them and my memory about them is a bit fuzzy.

Judging from everything I have read and understand about this powder keg of a situation, I'm not convinced Mr. Wilson's actions at the time were specifically motivated by race. The Justice Department paints a pretty damning picture of the police department in Ferguson, but until and unless someone can show me proof of Mr. Wilson's bias in this specific incident, I remain unconvinced of the accusation that his actions were racially motivated.

Are there systemic issues of racial bias present in Ferguson and around the country? Absolutely.

For me, the bottom line is that ALL police activity needs to be more transparent. Abuse of power and violations of Constitutional rights need to be resolved. We need to hold ALL officers accountable for their actions in the same way that other professionals are held accountable for their performance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I see how race is a piece of the puzzle, but I personally don't see it as being the only one.

Daekyras
04-09-2015, 01:51 PM
On a completely random note I was once accused of racism by a friend at work for saying ufc fighter joe lauzon looks like a chimpanzee.

We were looking at the following picture:

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www2.cdn.sherdog.com/_images/pictures/20131214090146_5D3_4137.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Lightweights-Joe-Lauzon-Michael-Chiesa-Slated-for-UFC-Fight-Night-in-Connecticut-69343&h=400&w=600&tbnid=ql9KzKYMYsUlWM:&zoom=1&q=joe+lauzon+chimpanzee&docid=MzVtiV0hsDeyqM&ei=ULomVZqNC5G0aY-rgYAN&tbm=isch&ved=0CCcQMygLMAs


I still don't understand how and why? I mean, dude looks like a chimp.

Southpaw2012
04-09-2015, 04:08 PM
On a completely random note I was once accused of racism by a friend at work for saying ufc fighter joe lauzon looks like a chimpanzee.

We were looking at the following picture:

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www2.cdn.sherdog.com/_images/pictures/20131214090146_5D3_4137.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Lightweights-Joe-Lauzon-Michael-Chiesa-Slated-for-UFC-Fight-Night-in-Connecticut-69343&h=400&w=600&tbnid=ql9KzKYMYsUlWM:&zoom=1&q=joe+lauzon+chimpanzee&docid=MzVtiV0hsDeyqM&ei=ULomVZqNC5G0aY-rgYAN&tbm=isch&ved=0CCcQMygLMAs


I still don't understand how and why? I mean, dude looks like a chimp.


It's because the accusation of racism is so overused in today's society that it has become an absolute joke. It's a turn by the Left to silence people because people don't want to be labeled as a racist. Hell, people are labeled as racists for opposing Obama's policies. One of many Left wing elitist professors tried saying that white people are inherently racist. What a load of shit. I've never omce denied the existence of racism, but it is clearly overstated and has become a Left wing tool to silence. There is racism that goes the other way too but you don't hear about it, of course. And by the way, to a response above, did Wilson have any history of racism? Selective profiling? I'm not talking about other members of a police department in a rough area of town, I'm talking about Wilson, the shooter of Brown. No. The hands up don't shoot has been proven to be a lie. It was even proven to be a lie by the crook, and in my opinion one of the main reasons of racial divide, Eric Holder. Brown was a thug and a crook and now he's dead and Wilsons life is ruined by the left wing media because he was a white guy doing his job. Pathetic.

connabard
04-09-2015, 04:23 PM
There is racism that goes the other way too but you don't hear about it, of course.

Do you mean racism against white people? Because the most I, or any other white person I know, has experienced is maybe having black people be wary of me, or calling me a "cracker"

Neither of which hold any bite to it, considering the social power difference. A black person calling me a cracker is not even remotely the same as me calling a black person a n*****, and comparing them is offensive.

Daekyras
04-09-2015, 04:30 PM
A black person calling me a cracker is not even remotely the same as me calling a black person a n*****, and comparing them is offensive.

Comparing them is misguided. It should not be offensive.

connabard
04-09-2015, 04:36 PM
Comparing them is misguided. It should not be offensive.

There's a long history to the counterpart of cracker, w/r/t to white people literally owning black people, and dehumanizing them, etc

Comparing those two terms really, really devalues the context of the one, and that is offensive.

Daekyras
04-09-2015, 05:11 PM
Comparing those two terms really, really devalues the context of the one, and that is offensive.

Comparing them devalues nothing. It shows a lack of knowledge of the subject and a certain lack of intelligence but it does not take away the hatred that the other word invokes.

Comparing them is not in and of itself offensive.

eht slat meit
04-09-2015, 06:42 PM
Occam's Razor tells us that the mentality of both individuals involved in that incident was likely affected by the long-term racial policies of that police dept. This incident didn't occur in a vacuum and those mentalities almost certainly played into both responses and actions of both Michael Brown and Officer Wilson during the confrontation.

Occam's Razor doesn't tell us anything. You're misusing the bastardized popular misconception of what the rule actually states, and as fdsaf pointed out, you're not even using it correctly.

The Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity.""

http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html

Considering that we are discussing the murder of a young man, an action with dramatic repercussions on every level, complexity of discussion IS necessary and it's entirely inappropriate to blow off all discussion with a shrug and stating "racism" as if it were the fact and the truth.

It's explained quite accurately that the man who created it wouldn't appreciate the modern and very inappropriate usages because it is overly abused as a generalization to explain anything in everything where it was intended for discussion of higher philosophy.

In modern philosophy it has been more expansively intepreted and applied in this form: " The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better." ~ Wiki

To the point, you are making an insanely great number of assumptions using an unquantifiable set of data to establish "equal prediction" so you aren't even meeting the basic expectations of applying the principle.

Occam's Razor as an answer to problems is easy and convenient, but in a situation like this, there are a LOT of simple answers. Some racist, some misguided, some stupid, some valid but failing to establish meaningful discussion.

I appreciate the higher level of discussion, but I'd ask that if you're going to start throwing philosophical principles that neither of us have all that great a grasp of around, you use them correctly or not at all.

Personally, I opt for not at all here, because again.... this is the life and death of a young man, as well as that of the man who killed him, as well as the greater issues attached to it.

Nazbaque
04-09-2015, 07:12 PM
I basically agree with eht on Occam's Razor, but just to clarify: "The simplest solution is almost always the best."

1) No matter how much people want to drop the "almost" when quoting it, the point is that this is a general guideline and any specific case can be an exception.

2) It is inteded for comparing solutions that have all been proven to work. In the case of finding out what truth is it is pointless to refer to it as there is only one correct answer and that one will therefore be the best regardless of how complex or simple it is in comparison to the false answers.

Occam's Razor is for choosing among working solutions, not for finding them.

Kimon
04-09-2015, 10:17 PM
They just released the officer's dash cam video. It seemed pretty routine and non-confrontational until the guy jumped out of his car and started running.

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttyxt3bjq2k

Here is what happened next:

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

This is clearly excessive force, the question still remains as to whether it was just poor training or also symptomatic of racism - it was a black guy in a mercedes getting pulled over for a busted tail-light, but nothing really obvious in the first video. Still, not so sure that a white guy in the same car gets pulled over. On the other hand, if the guy doesn't run...

GonzoTheGreat
04-10-2015, 04:38 AM
Judging from everything I have read and understand about this powder keg of a situation, I'm not convinced Mr. Wilson's actions at the time were specifically motivated by race. The Justice Department paints a pretty damning picture of the police department in Ferguson, but until and unless someone can show me proof of Mr. Wilson's bias in this specific incident, I remain unconvinced of the accusation that his actions were racially motivated.
It is quite possible that Wilson wasn't acting out of racism, but simply out of a sense of his own superiority as a noble police officer over (probably guilty) commoners. Supposedly everyone is equal in the USA, but police officers are more equal than others.

This is clearly excessive force, the question still remains as to whether it was just poor training or also symptomatic of racism - it was a black guy in a mercedes getting pulled over for a busted tail-light, but nothing really obvious in the first video. Still, not so sure that a white guy in the same car gets pulled over. On the other hand, if the guy doesn't run...
Good advice when confronting a large bear or an American police officer: don't run, play dead instead. Predators tend to react aggressively to someone running away; they immediately go into a "that's prey" mode and move in for a kill.
Note: some liberals think that a police officer should have a bit more self control than a grizzly.

Morelikeunwisewoman
04-10-2015, 06:04 AM
Note: some liberals think that a police officer should have a bit more self control than a grizzly.

They do expect so much these days. Remember the good old days when an officer of the law could just beat on a black man for the crime of....being black? Is it any wonder there is a lingering resentment towards the police when generations of people were subjected to demeaning and downright inexcusable actions from that very same police force?

Every time a case like this comes up it widens the gap between the two races further. And don't give me that crap about how "talking about it exacerbates the situation". What creates a bigger divide is the ridiculous nature of some of the rulings in court. (I know that wasn't you gtg)

But hey, OJ got off, m I rite?

GonzoTheGreat
04-10-2015, 06:37 AM
But OJ promised to hunt down the real killer, so it is obvious that he was innocent.

Southpaw2012
04-10-2015, 12:13 PM
Do you mean racism against white people? Because the most I, or any other white person I know, has experienced is maybe having black people be wary of me, or calling me a "cracker"

Neither of which hold any bite to it, considering the social power difference. A black person calling me a cracker is not even remotely the same as me calling a black person a n*****, and comparing them is offensive.

Todays society: white person kills black person = racism. Black person kills white person = must've been from black person's poor economic standing or been down on his luck. Now, without any facts as to what happened in either situation, those are the things that first come to people's minds, regardless of the circumstances, and it's ridiculous. The n-word is offensive due to it's meaning and it's history, so of course it shouldn't be used, but that's not up for debate.

eht slat meit
04-10-2015, 12:25 PM
Todays society: white person kills black person = racism. Black person kills white person = must've been from black person's poor economic standing or been down on his luck. Now, without any facts as to what happened in either situation, those are the things that first come to people's minds, regardless of the circumstances, and it's ridiculous. The n-word is offensive due to it's meaning and it's history, so of course it shouldn't be used, but that's not up for debate.

The difference between the two, in terms of terminology, is that one is a *slur* while the other is an insult. The two have similarities, but in terms of the language, those similarities only run.... pun intended... skin deep. It's the difference between flesh wounds and internal injuries.

Insulting simply means to speak to someone scornfully or abusively.

Slurring them carries a vast depth of insinuation and allegation behind the word which is why one is considered so deeply taboo.

Both are racial in nature, but only one carries a serious depth of racist beliefs behind it.

Ozymandias
04-10-2015, 01:52 PM
There is another systemic problem, besides racism, that seems often to be at play in all of these incidents. Police have been trained to use excessive force in too many of these confrontations. Training methods and protocols for conflict resolution would seem to be an easier and more productive starting point, as would a shift away again from the use of more militarized equipment and militarized units, like SWAT. This is a far larger problem than just racism. Indeed, situations like this one in South Carolina seem more like a symptom, yes of racism also, but moreover of the militarization of what should have been peacekeepers.

Something needs to be done about these incidents where racism is clearly playing a significant part, but let's not overlook another pervasive problem by focusing only on this one symptom.

Crap like this needs to stop too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/24/new-aclu-report-takes-a-snapshot-of-police-militarization-in-the-united-states/

All of this. I agree the larger problem is not racism, but police militarization. Get rid of racism and all you'll have is the police using excessive force on everyone.

Nazbaque
04-10-2015, 05:26 PM
All of this. I agree the larger problem is not racism, but police militarization. Get rid of racism and all you'll have is the police using excessive force on everyone.

Well not quite. The two combined are the larger problem. The militarization provides the means and the racism provides the excuse. If racism is removed, it just takes away the excuse, but it just happens to be a very effective excuse. It's a very bad excuse if they want to look good, but if they want people to give up on trying to solve the underlying problem it's down right brilliant.

And that is the problem beneath the militarization. The people giving the orders do not seek the moral high ground. It's about having power and excercising it. They do not really worry about if they are abusing the power they have so long as they get to keep it. From that point of view being labeled as just another racist is useful because it serves as an excellent distraction.

eht slat meit
04-10-2015, 06:24 PM
If racism is removed, it just takes away the excuse, but it just happens to be a very effective excuse.

That's a nice dream, but only achievable by controlling human nature with external sources, something that is ultimately highly undesirable because nobody can be trusted with that kind of power. Politicians of every stripe would like you to believe that they or they and their boon companions may be, but most adults that haven't led sheltered lives know that for a lie.

Southpaw2012
04-10-2015, 06:44 PM
All of this. I agree the larger problem is not racism, but police militarization. Get rid of racism and all you'll have is the police using excessive force on everyone.

Police already do use excessive force on everyone. The reason it's more noticeable towards minorities such as blacks is because that's what the media cares about. The liberal media selectively chooses stories and blows them out of proportion for a larger purpose. Since the country has had a history of slavery and inequality, it's easy to pull out and examine every thing that goes against a black person. There has been slavery and inequality throughout the world since the beginning of time, but here in America we continue to harp on and on with racism and inequality towards blacks when it's unnecessary. There is still room for improvement, and it's not like it should never be talked about, because it certainly should, but it has gotten out of control and pissing people off who have common sense. There are good cops and there are bad cops. Sometimes an innocent white person gets hurt/killed, and sometimes an innocent black person gets hurt/killed. That's life. Most of the time we don't know the circumstances but the media creates something (such as the hands up, don't shoot fantasy) and then people distort facts. I agree, police forces need to be better trained, but you can understand why some may be on edge when they go into areas that are known for violence. That doesn't excuse them, but does add some context to certain circumstances. From what we know of the shooting in South Carolina recently, that should never have been done and now the cop is thankfully facing the consequences.

Terez
04-10-2015, 07:06 PM
Police already do use excessive force on everyone. The reason it's more noticeable towards minorities such as blacks is because that's what the media cares about.
Bullshit. Cops target minorities and segregated minority communities; that is documented fact.

Nazbaque
04-10-2015, 08:18 PM
That's a nice dream, but only achievable by controlling human nature with external sources, something that is ultimately highly undesirable because nobody can be trusted with that kind of power. Politicians of every stripe would like you to believe that they or they and their boon companions may be, but most adults that haven't led sheltered lives know that for a lie.

Eht actually read what people post would you. You've been doing this before. You single out a phrase, take it out of context and twist it so you can argue something that was never said.

I was not saying that racism can just be removed. I was merely illustrating the more subtle aspects of the problem.

eht slat meit
04-10-2015, 08:23 PM
Eht actually read what people post would you. You've been doing this before. You single out a phrase, take it out of context and twist it so you can argue something that was never said.

I was not saying that racism can just be removed. I was merely illustrating the more subtle aspects of the problem.

Except that regardless of what *you* maybe believe, there are many others who seem to genuinely believe that one CAN control this in others - root it out and make it never happen again. If I genuinely thought YOU believed that, I'd call you an idiot and leave it there.

This is a problem in the context of the larger issue. When people naively believe that slinging catchphrases around and witch-hunting anyone who possesses one of the most common aspects of human nature, it leads to a polarization of the worst kind, one where one extreme is raging hateful bigots, and the other is self-righteous zealots who destroy in the name of the greater good.

Zealotry isn't just limited to religion, and I see disturbing amounts of this in comments throughout various articles on the internet.

Consider that a criticism only if it applies to you. I don't know you well enough to say it does.

Nazbaque
04-10-2015, 08:31 PM
Except that regardless of what *you* maybe believe, there are many others who seem to genuinely believe that one CAN control this in others - root it out and make it never happen again. If I genuinely thought YOU believed that, I'd call you an idiot and leave it there.

This is a problem in the context of the larger issue. When people naively believe that slinging catchphrases around and witch-hunting anyone who possesses one of the most common aspects of human nature, it leads to a polarization of the worst kind, one where one extreme is raging hateful bigots, and the other is self-righteous zealots who destroy in the name of the greater good.

Zealotry isn't just limited to religion, and I see disturbing amounts of this in comments throughout various articles on the internet.

Consider that a criticism only if it applies to you. I don't know you well enough to say it does.

And? What is your point? The sky is blue during the day yes. Do you have point or are you just raving?

eht slat meit
04-11-2015, 01:16 AM
And? What is your point? The sky is blue during the day yes. Do you have point or are you just raving?

I expect that if you spend a little more time honing your reading comprehension skills and much less time policing my post, you won't find that big old point quite sol elusive.

Nazbaque
04-11-2015, 01:31 AM
I expect that if you spend a little more time honing your reading comprehension skills and much less time policing my post, you won't find that big old point quite sol elusive.

So you were just raving about the sky being blue as it were.

GonzoTheGreat
04-11-2015, 05:37 AM
If racism is removed, it just takes away the excuse, but it just happens to be a very effective excuse.

That's a nice dream, but only achievable by controlling human nature with external sources, something that is ultimately highly undesirable because nobody can be trusted with that kind of power.
Supposedly, God has that kind of power.

So either God exists and fully approves of racism, or God does not exist and racism is proof thereof.

The USA is a very religious country, and obviously most Americans believe that God wants them to be racists. If they turn to atheism, then racism will disappear as well.

eht slat meit
04-11-2015, 11:16 AM
So you were just raving about the sky being blue as it were.

If you consider establishing a boundary on a public misperception that these subtle aspects of the problem, or "illustrating" as you might put it, why they are typically bound for failure is simply stating the sky is blue, then yes.

However, most people are smart enough to recognize that what I was doing was little different than what you were doing and not get in a hypocritical huff about it.

eht slat meit
04-11-2015, 11:19 AM
Supposedly, God has that kind of power.

So either God exists and fully approves of racism, or God does not exist and racism is proof thereof.

The USA is a very religious country, and obviously most Americans believe that God wants them to be racists. If they turn to atheism, then racism will disappear as well.

That's a nice appeal to my self-esteem as somehow being better than the religious nuts, but since I don't believe in God, I don't really see the point.

As far as that god-thing goes, supposedly we've got all this free will that lets people murder, rape and pillage in its name, so go figure where racism might not matter much to it.

GonzoTheGreat
04-11-2015, 11:56 AM
Is racism just a matter of choice, though? Some people decide "I'll be racist", others decide "I don't want to bother with that, murdering is enough for me" and that's all there is to it?

Southpaw2012
04-11-2015, 03:36 PM
Bullshit. Cops target minorities and segregated minority communities; that is documented fact.

I'm sure in some jurisdictions they do, and that certainly needs to improve. I'm sure in some jurisdictions they keep an eye on a minority heavy area due to a history of racism in that area. However, some areas are closely monitored due to excessive violence. Remember the crap called "black lives matter"? And I call it crap because a professor tried to change it to "all lives matter" and got destroyed for it, so I have a strong anger towards the specific "black lives matter" since everyone matters, not just blacks. Well, black lives, as well as white lives and all other lives matter, so in areas where violence is a concern, cops do monitor more closely and I'm sure do use more protection. If you think cops are targeting specific areas due strictly to racism, then fine. Lets pull the cops out of south side Chicago and see what happens. In areas of known violence, whether it be a minority heavy area or an all white area, cops need to be more alert.

Daekyras
04-11-2015, 03:42 PM
Is racism just a matter of choice, though? Some people decide "I'll be racist", others decide "I don't want to bother with that, murdering is enough for me" and that's all there is to it?

Oh gonzo, showing your ultra conservative side again.The old " People aren't born this way, it's a lifestyle choice" argument. I think there is a lady gaga song you should listen to and take notes. :cool:

eht slat meit
04-11-2015, 03:49 PM
Is racism just a matter of choice, though? Some people decide "I'll be racist", others decide "I don't want to bother with that, murdering is enough for me" and that's all there is to it?

I don't believe so, no. I think it's a manifestation of something else. There's probably a word for it, like extrophobia or something, constituting a fear of that which is not like oneself. For some it would manifest in race, or religion, or creed, or gender orientation, some or all of the above, or elsewise. Maybe not everyone has that.

And then there are those who learn to be that way whether they were or not.

I wouldn't say choice OR born that way, I'd say some combination of both.

Kimon
04-11-2015, 07:29 PM
I'm sure in some jurisdictions they do, and that certainly needs to improve. I'm sure in some jurisdictions they keep an eye on a minority heavy area due to a history of racism in that area. However, some areas are closely monitored due to excessive violence. Remember the crap called "black lives matter"? And I call it crap because a professor tried to change it to "all lives matter" and got destroyed for it, so I have a strong anger towards the specific "black lives matter" since everyone matters, not just blacks. Well, black lives, as well as white lives and all other lives matter, so in areas where violence is a concern, cops do monitor more closely and I'm sure do use more protection. If you think cops are targeting specific areas due strictly to racism, then fine. Lets pull the cops out of south side Chicago and see what happens. In areas of known violence, whether it be a minority heavy area or an all white area, cops need to be more alert.

In their defense, at least here, the policy was not, as previously in Ferguson, revenue driven, but it is still a double-edged sword. Anyway, here you go...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/south-carolina-police-shooting-seen-as-crime-fighting-gone-awry.html

I'm still struck by the question of whether a white man would have ever been stopped if driving the same car. He did have a busted tail-light, but you had to be really looking closely at it to notice even when looking for it while watching the video. It seems similar to the stop-and-frisk policy that had been in use in New York. Stop-and-frisk worked, but it still antagonized the locals since it was obviously only targeting young black and hispanic men. The same was the case apparently here. So, is that racism? Yeah. Was it effective? It had been, but I think we can all agree that this incident shouldn't have ended with a dead man. Nonetheless, I still think that it's a mistake to overlook the issue of training and the pervasive willingness on the part of the police to resort to violence when it seems so unnecessary.

As for why we hear so much about these incidents going wrong specifically between young (and even not-so-young) black men and cops, it would be naive to not recognize a high degree of mistrust and feelings of harassment by the police on the part of the black men, and equally a suspicion and mistrust of black men, especially young black men on the part of the police. It would be naive not to view this at least in part as a learned behavior for both groups, and fixing that sort of societal problem, at least in my opinion, is far more difficult than trying to address instead the training side of the equation.

Nazbaque
04-11-2015, 08:35 PM
If you consider establishing a boundary on a public misperception that these subtle aspects of the problem, or "illustrating" as you might put it, why they are typically bound for failure is simply stating the sky is blue, then yes.

However, most people are smart enough to recognize that what I was doing was little different than what you were doing and not get in a hypocritical huff about it.

It's more that you were saying that to me. I've been saying for months that the problem is in the lack of emotional self control on every side. You either haven't read any recent threads on similar subjects or didn't understand what I said. Now if you just got back here, as it seems, it's understandable for you to have missed a few discussions and I'm not saying you should have gone through the archives for everything that has been going on, but this stuff isn't even half way down the first page. So you don't really show any mind to who you are talking to and how they might think. You jumped in on half a conversation with that zeal you condemned and without any consideration for what happened earlier.

I've said it just in this thread, I've said it a number of times before you took a break. You don't pay enough attention to what people are saying eht and it makes you look like an idiot.

GonzoTheGreat
04-12-2015, 05:34 AM
In areas of known violence, whether it be a minority heavy area or an all white area, cops need to be more alert.
But that is not the important issue, is it?
The problem those police officers then usually create is that in those areas, they focus very strongly on minority groups, while mostly ignoring the rest of the population, even when those are also a significant issue in generating the problems.
For instance, I've heard of areas where lots of illegal immigrants try to get picked up for day jobs. In some places, the local sheriff has a tendency to harass those immigrants, but you basically never hear about him arresting those who drive by to hire those immigrants. Yet without that demand for illegal labour, there wouldn't be a market and hence no point in offering such labour either.

Oh gonzo, showing your ultra conservative side again.The old " People aren't born this way, it's a lifestyle choice" argument. I think there is a lady gaga song you should listen to and take notes. :cool:
Ah, you know Bad Kids! Yes, that is indeed quite appropriate to this discussion.

I don't believe so, no. I think it's a manifestation of something else. There's probably a word for it, like extrophobia or something, constituting a fear of that which is not like oneself.
I think that you are trying to invent xenophobia. Someone else got there first, so I don't think you will manage to patent this. Still, you can try.

GonzoTheGreat
04-12-2015, 08:30 AM
The problem with the police is actually not the bad cops. Those are a problem, sure, but not the problem. A bigger problem than bad cops is what supposedly good cops do when they spot a bad one: nothing at best, tell lies to back up the bad one more likely.

Why is it that we hardly ever hear of a police officer arrested on the spot for beating up (or killing) someone?
I find it hard to believe that such things happen so often that the media just don't bother reporting it; it seems more likely that the rarity of reports is because most police officers look the other way when their coworkers do evil.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke (which surprised me; I'd thought this was a newer saying.)
By doing nothing when other police officers do evil, entire police departments become evil. That is the problem here, that is the problem that many conservatives (both here and elsewhere) overlook.

Nazbaque
04-12-2015, 09:32 AM
The problem with the police is actually not the bad cops. Those are a problem, sure, but not the problem. A bigger problem than bad cops is what supposedly good cops do when they spot a bad one: nothing at best, tell lies to back up the bad one more likely.

Why is it that we hardly ever hear of a police officer arrested on the spot for beating up (or killing) someone?
I find it hard to believe that such things happen so often that the media just don't bother reporting it; it seems more likely that the rarity of reports is because most police officers look the other way when their coworkers do evil.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke (which surprised me; I'd thought this was a newer saying.)
By doing nothing when other police officers do evil, entire police departments become evil. That is the problem here, that is the problem that many conservatives (both here and elsewhere) overlook.

*Blink*

Well I do agree with you, but that is very ungonzoishly written. It's all serious and stuff. So who are you, using Gonzo's acount to post serious opinions and what have you done with his ass?

GonzoTheGreat
04-12-2015, 10:13 AM
Well I do agree with you, but that is very ungonzoishly written. It's all serious and stuff.
To quote Donald Rumsfeld: "stuff happens."

Nazbaque
04-12-2015, 11:40 AM
So what have you done with Gonzo's ass?

eht slat meit
04-12-2015, 12:24 PM
It's more that you were saying that to me.

If you were paying attention to what I said, as well as my clarification solely for your benefit, it wasn't targeting you. This is a discussion. It is not a personal criticism fest. Anyone can weigh in t any time. This means I can pick and choose pieces of what you are saying that I am interested in, and discuss them further.

Your hellbound intent on taking it personally suggests to me that a> you are a control freak and want to ensure that only your pre-approved discussion/illustration takes place or b> that despite your claims, what I said is hitting you on a personal level and you don't want to admit that. Please, explain why a discussion point that is not about YOU has to do with you and only you.

I've been saying for months that the problem is in the lack of emotional self control on every side.

Then perhaps you should work on it. You're showing a distinct lack.

So you don't really show any mind to who you are talking to and how they might think.

That's right, because dun dun dun.... it wasn't about you, and how you might think.

You jumped in on half a conversation with that zeal you condemned and without any consideration for what happened earlier.

The word is zest, not zeal. The difference between the two is that one is fanatical and uncompromising.

I've said it just in this thread, I've said it a number of times before you took a break.

So that's why you're familiar. It's been awhile as I take repeated breaks, and while all of the names are familiar, the only ones I really recognize anything about are Zombie, Terez, Gonzo and Davian.

You don't pay enough attention to what people are saying eht and it makes you look like an idiot.

It wasn't valid before and it isn't valid now. Saying so only makes you look like a control freak or liar.

eht slat meit
04-12-2015, 12:36 PM
I think that you are trying to invent xenophobia. Someone else got there first, so I don't think you will manage to patent this. Still, you can try.

Thanks, for some reason I always associate this with aliens. Still, my new Encyclopedia Ehttannica should have more than enough material.

Nazbaque
04-12-2015, 12:54 PM
If you were paying attention to what I said, as well as my clarification solely for your benefit, it wasn't targeting you. This is a discussion. It is not a personal criticism fest. Anyone can weigh in t any time. This means I can pick and choose pieces of what you are saying that I am interested in, and discuss them further.

Your hellbound intent on taking it personally suggests to me that a> you are a control freak and want to ensure that only your pre-approved discussion/illustration takes place or b> that despite your claims, what I said is hitting you on a personal level and you don't want to admit that. Please, explain why a discussion point that is not about YOU has to do with you and only you.



Then perhaps you should work on it. You're showing a distinct lack.



That's right, because dun dun dun.... it wasn't about you, and how you might think.



The word is zest, not zeal. The difference between the two is that one is fanatical and uncompromising.



So that's why you're familiar. It's been awhile as I take repeated breaks, and while all of the names are familiar, the only ones I really recognize anything about are Zombie, Terez, Gonzo and Davian.



It wasn't valid before and it isn't valid now. Saying so only makes you look like a control freak or liar.

So you somehow were saying that to everyone but not to me?

You are showing no consideration to how anyone thinks. That's not discussing, that's just raving.

I'm fully aware of the difference between zest and zeal and chose the appropriate word based on your behaviour.

Your lack in recognizing people speaks volumes for the validity of my analysis.

Your quick resorting to insults and the obvious anger behind your words also suggests that you really do have serious problems with emotional control.

The anger itself and the claims of not having the personality traits you obviously do tells us that you have a case of denial.

And there is your hero complex as well where anyone who criticizes you or argues with you immediatly turns into a "villain" in your mind. They have to be evil and since you are the hero you are right and win by default.

Oh and you are a worse brat than TEOTW Egwene.

eht slat meit
04-12-2015, 02:01 PM
So you somehow were saying that to everyone but not to me?

No, you're definitely included, but you are attempting to single yourself out as if you are personally being attacked. Why do YOU deserve special consideration?

You are showing no consideration to how anyone thinks. That's not discussing, that's just raving.

Don't speak for everyone. Just you.

I'm fully aware of the difference between zest and zeal and chose the appropriate word based on your behaviour.

Nope. You, much the way you criticize me for being, have absolutely no idea who I am or what I stand for, and therefore you can make zero legitimate claims about me being a zealot. Zealotry, by definition is one who shows excessive singlemindedness and enthusiasm. That's clearly not me, and you'd know that if you were actually familiar with the wide and diverse number of conversations I've had.

Your lack in recognizing people speaks volumes for the validity of my analysis.

It's been over a year, I've taken repeated and very lengthy breaks and I'm not tight with anyone in this community. Why would you expect more? Are you that desperate to prove a completely illegitimate claim?

Your quick resorting to insults and the obvious anger behind your words also suggests that you really do have serious problems with emotional control.

Pot-kettle. Please note your first two knee-jerk attacks.

And there is your hero complex as well where ayone who criticizes you or argues with you immediatly turns into a "villain" in your mind.

Your knee-jerk response to this conversation was to turn yourself into a victim. I am not a hero, and you are not a villain. You're simply a control freak or a liar.

They have to be evil and since you are the hero you are right and win by default.

No, I'm right because you agreed with me that I am right. For some reason you couldn't leave it at that, but felt you had to police the thread and personally attack me anyway.

Carry on your little Light Crusade if you must, Captain Baquehald, but you're embarrassing yourself more than anyone else.

Daekyras
04-12-2015, 04:49 PM
No, you're definitely included, but you are attempting to single yourself out as if you are personally being attacked. Why do YOU deserve special consideration?



Don't speak for everyone. Just you.



Nope. You, much the way you criticize me for being, have absolutely no idea who I am or what I stand for, and therefore you can make zero legitimate claims about me being a zealot. Zealotry, by definition is one who shows excessive singlemindedness and enthusiasm. That's clearly not me, and you'd know that if you were actually familiar with the wide and diverse number of conversations I've had.



It's been over a year, I've taken repeated and very lengthy breaks and I'm not tight with anyone in this community. Why would you expect more? Are you that desperate to prove a completely illegitimate claim?



Pot-kettle. Please note your first two knee-jerk attacks.



Your knee-jerk response to this conversation was to turn yourself into a victim. I am not a hero, and you are not a villain. You're simply a control freak or a liar.



No, I'm right because you agreed with me that I am right. For some reason you couldn't leave it at that, but felt you had to police the thread and personally attack me anyway.

Carry on your little Light Crusade if you must, Captain Baquehald, but you're embarrassing yourself more than anyone else.

I freaking love the Internet. Calm down fellas.

Davian93
04-12-2015, 07:06 PM
The problem with the police is actually not the bad cops. Those are a problem, sure, but not the problem. A bigger problem than bad cops is what supposedly good cops do when they spot a bad one: nothing at best, tell lies to back up the bad one more likely.

Why is it that we hardly ever hear of a police officer arrested on the spot for beating up (or killing) someone?
I find it hard to believe that such things happen so often that the media just don't bother reporting it; it seems more likely that the rarity of reports is because most police officers look the other way when their coworkers do evil.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke (which surprised me; I'd thought this was a newer saying.)
By doing nothing when other police officers do evil, entire police departments become evil. That is the problem here, that is the problem that many conservatives (both here and elsewhere) overlook.

Um...those are bad cops too. If driving the getaway car gets you the same sentence as robbing the liquor store, the supposed 'good' cops that look the other way are just as freaking complicit when their colleagues engage in corruption.

Davian93
04-12-2015, 07:08 PM
Police already do use excessive force on everyone. The reason it's more noticeable towards minorities such as blacks is because that's what the media cares about. The liberal media selectively chooses stories and blows them out of proportion for a larger purpose. Since the country has had a history of slavery and inequality, it's easy to pull out and examine every thing that goes against a black person. There has been slavery and inequality throughout the world since the beginning of time, but here in America we continue to harp on and on with racism and inequality towards blacks when it's unnecessary. There is still room for improvement, and it's not like it should never be talked about, because it certainly should, but it has gotten out of control and pissing people off who have common sense. There are good cops and there are bad cops. Sometimes an innocent white person gets hurt/killed, and sometimes an innocent black person gets hurt/killed. That's life. Most of the time we don't know the circumstances but the media creates something (such as the hands up, don't shoot fantasy) and then people distort facts. I agree, police forces need to be better trained, but you can understand why some may be on edge when they go into areas that are known for violence. That doesn't excuse them, but does add some context to certain circumstances. From what we know of the shooting in South Carolina recently, that should never have been done and now the cop is thankfully facing the consequences.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xCkhE5RHy8A/U9LJeb1qnAI/AAAAAAAAUqk/Tp0zuNQoTik/s1600/well,+there+it+is.+the+stupidest+F'cking+thing+I'l l+read+all+day.jpg

Davian93
04-12-2015, 07:09 PM
Bullshit. Cops target minorities and segregated minority communities; that is documented fact.

If only there was a recent Justice Dept report on say, FERGUSON, that illustrated that point...if only.

Davian93
04-12-2015, 07:23 PM
Hey look, another one...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-eric-harris-fatally-shot-police-accident-instead-tased-n340116


He said he was sorry afterward for accidentally shooting him (instead of tazering him)...so we're cool, right?

eht slat meit
04-12-2015, 07:36 PM
Hey look, another one...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-eric-harris-fatally-shot-police-accident-instead-tased-n340116


He said he was sorry afterward for accidentally shooting him (instead of tazering him)...so we're cool, right?

No, you fire him regardless, and then charge him with criminal negligence if it would apply to a normal person in an accidental shooting.

After reading the article, it appears to be less about violent cop than stupid cop.

Davian93
04-12-2015, 07:41 PM
No, you fire him regardless, and then charge him with criminal negligence if it would apply to a normal person in an accidental shooting.

After reading the article, it appears to be less about violent cop than stupid cop.

I'm gonna chalk this one up to "tragic mistake" but he should still be fired and then charged with negligence, wrongful discharge of a deadly weapon and anything else that applies.

To be clear, I don't think race had anything at all to do with this shooting. Best part of this one...HIS BODY CAM clears up any of the mystery as to what happened. This is a prime example of why they should be mandatory.

eht slat meit
04-12-2015, 08:12 PM
I'm gonna chalk this one up to "tragic mistake" but he should still be fired and then charged with negligence, wrongful discharge of a deadly weapon and anything else that applies.

To be clear, I don't think race had anything at all to do with this shooting. Best part of this one...HIS BODY CAM clears up any of the mystery as to what happened. This is a prime example of why they should be mandatory.

I *love* the concept of bodycams. They aren't a miracle and won't stop all the bs, but they are/will eliminate a lot of gray ground that is an unfortunate element of he-said/he-said that cops enjoy way too much benefit from because of their necessary position of authority.

Davian93
04-12-2015, 08:13 PM
I *love* the concept of bodycams. They aren't a miracle and won't stop all the bs, but they are/will eliminate a lot of gray ground that is an unfortunate element of he-said/he-said that cops enjoy way too much benefit from because of their necessary position of authority.

They are definitely not the end-all, be-all solution but they sure as hell help (as you note). There will, of course, be issues with storage of the footage, etc but in this case, they definitely turned yet another potential gray "he said, they said" type of incident into a very clear picture.

eht slat meit
04-12-2015, 08:51 PM
They are definitely not the end-all, be-all solution but they sure as hell help (as you note). There will, of course, be issues with storage of the footage, etc but in this case, they definitely turned yet another potential gray "he said, they said" type of incident into a very clear picture.

If nothing else, it's my fondest wish that it puts an end to sensationalist race-baiting bs like this on Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/police-killed-john-crawford-walmart-155002241.html

Terez
04-12-2015, 10:01 PM
Race-baiting?

eht slat meit
04-12-2015, 10:29 PM
Race-baiting?

Specific to Yahoo filtering, as far as I know, yes. They published something around 7 variations from various AP sources with the same sharply limited information that was clearly intended to fit the white cop kills innocent black person stereotype when they first started putting it out. One article actually contained slightly more of the actual full story, but it was pretty clear that the authors had been successful at pissing people off to the degree where they had no actual idea of what had really happened.

Terez
04-12-2015, 11:34 PM
Specific to Yahoo filtering, as far as I know, yes. They published something around 7 variations from various AP sources with the same sharply limited information that was clearly intended to fit the white cop kills innocent black person stereotype when they first started putting it out. One article actually contained slightly more of the actual full story, but it was pretty clear that the authors had been successful at pissing people off to the degree where they had no actual idea of what had really happened.
Which was....what exactly? By the time the news of that interview broke we knew what had happened in the Walmart from security footage, interviews with the 911 caller, etc.; we haven't really learned anything new about that since. The interview with the girlfriend was just a side story that came out some time down the road and got relatively little attention.

eht slat meit
04-12-2015, 11:45 PM
Which was....what exactly? By the time the news of that interview broke we knew what had happened in the Walmart from security footage, interviews with the 911 caller, etc.; we haven't really learned anything new about that since. The interview with the girlfriend was just a side story that came out some time down the road and got relatively little attention.

Like the fact that:
1. The 911 caller was a crooked piece of crap that deliberately set up not only John Crawford to die, something that gets no mention,
2. ... but his own girlfriend was responsible for the death of a second woman, mother of two children and present in the same incident, something that doesn't even get passing mention.
3. The first jackass got busted for prank calling, despite the fact that he blatantly used the cops as a weapon against the black man, and his equally evil girlfriend got nothing.

You and I may know all this, but it came off like a complete shock to readers over a week later, despite the fact that all these details were available at the time of the article releases.

So, despite the fact that some piece of crap scumbag and his girlfriend are directly responsible for the targeted murder of one man, and by proxy, the death of another woman present, they get zero mention, and the cops get blamed for everything.

The situation still pisses me off simply by the fact of THAT alone,but it bugs me even more to have to get called a goddamn racist by people who think I'm making excuses for the cops, simply because this SPECIFIC media group didn't figure ALL the relevant information was quite sexy enough to fit the trend of evil white cops killing innocent black folks.

Hell, who ignores a victim in this kind of case and pretends it never happened?

If this weren't a trend with Yahoo, I could pretend it never happens, but I like to tell myself that at least they're not as patently unlikeable as Fox and their misbehavior encourages me to do my own research.

Terez
04-12-2015, 11:52 PM
I have never followed Yahoo. But then, I can't stand most media outlets and thus I don't expect much from them unless they are older than me. Those guys get no slack.

I would agree that the 911 caller was primarily responsible for the situation, but that doesn't mean the cops conducted themselves admirably.

eht slat meit
04-13-2015, 12:01 AM
I have never followed Yahoo. But then, I can't stand most media outlets and thus I don't expect much from them unless they are older than me. Those guys get no slack.

I would agree that the 911 caller was primarily responsible for the situation, but that doesn't mean the cops conducted themselves admirably.

I'll tell you this.

If you or I were to walk into a store with a gun, and proceed to load that gun with real bullets and then begin pointing it at children, the very least I would expect is getting shot down or beaten harshly by other shoppers.

THAT is what the caller, Ronald Ritchie, told 911 the man was doing. While he was doing that, his girlfriend April Ritchie began priming other shoppers for a full-scale panic by telling them the same thing. Her actions led to one Angela Williams, who was shopping with her two kids, dying of a heart attack when the cops began firing shots after she'd been told the black guy was pointing his gun at people.

The video shows this was all lies. The recorded calls prove they said it.

The cops took it exactly as seriously as they should have, and John Crawford died exactly the way Ronald Ritchie expected him to, protesting because he was innocent, goddamnit. He had know way of knowing the lie that was being told about him, and if he had, he'd have dropped the gun on the spot, you can bet.

The cops do not have the luxury of investigating the veracity of a call in this situation.

I believe that the cops were used as a murder weapon to kill two innocent people, and the real murderer escaped all justice.

There is nothing especially admirable about doing their job, but I think it is fundamentally wrong to deliberatley manufacture a media story to present them as if they were guilty for it.

Terez
04-13-2015, 12:10 AM
I'll tell you this.

If you or I were to walk into a store with a gun...
I'm not talking about the Walmart incident; I'm talking about the interview with the girlfriend. That said, by the time the cops got to Crawford, they knew no one had been shot. If they can be so easily used as a weapon by random 911 callers, then maybe they aren't that great at their jobs.

eht slat meit
04-13-2015, 12:29 AM
I'm not talking about the Walmart incident; I'm talking about the interview with the girlfriend. That said, by the time the cops got to Crawford, they knew no one had been shot. If they can be so easily used as a weapon by random 911 callers, they maybe they aren't that great at their jobs.

Ah, right the interrogation. I'd be a lot more critical of that if I was able to verify whether they watched the CCTV before or after the interrogation.

As far as the killing is concerned, when that 911 caller is savvy enough to know all the right lies to tell that will put the cops on high alert and ready to kill as they walk into the store, then I have to disagree. This wasn't some dumb prank, this was a targeted murder attempt by a someone with a criminal history.

Confirming shots fired? There was no point at which they had the opportunity to tell that, far as I can tell. They went looking for the guy with the gun pointing it at children, not bodies.

As they should have been.

Terez
04-13-2015, 12:48 AM
Confirming shots fired? There was no point at which they had the opportunity to tell that, far as I can tell. They went looking for the guy with the gun pointing it at children, not bodies. And yet the fact that there were no injured people on the way to the guy with the gun should have told them something. People who are armed and dangerous don't generally sit around waiting for the cops to get there. The same simple mistake was made with Tamir Rice.

eht slat meit
04-13-2015, 01:26 AM
And yet the fact that there were no injured people on the way to the guy with the gun should have told them something. People who are armed and dangerous don't generally sit around waiting for the cops to get there. The same simple mistake was made with Tamir Rice.

I take it you haven't seen the video cobbled together with the dispatch call. The murderous little piece of shit is on the phone with the dispatcher the entire time, and as soon as he finds out the cops are in the store, he tells the dispatcher that Crawford is pointing it at a couple kids who walked by, and within one minute, the cops pinpoint him at the front of the store and shoot him when he doesn't respond by dropping the gun.

Realize that - the caller deliberately did not give them time to act in such a way as they could give the guy with the gun the benefit of the doubt. Everything he was doing was the opposite of safe gun carry, highly suspect if painted in the worst possible light and while it was entirely innocent on his part, the cops can't simply keep thinking benefit of the doubt in that short a span until someone gets dead or doesn't.

He also made it a point to tell the dispatcher that there was another kid within the sight of Crawford so that the cops couldn't take any chances.

Again, this was within one minute.

Watch the video, and make sure it's a version with the 911 lies/call synched to the timeframe of the killing.

Nazbaque
04-13-2015, 01:27 AM
I freaking love the Internet. Calm down fellas.

But winding him up is so much fun!

eht slat meit
04-13-2015, 01:28 AM
On a side note, the very worst part about that call? The sick little bastard is watching the whole thing as it unfolds. He can see Crawford as its happening, and its unclear whether he can also see the cops coming right at the point where he starts lying about Crawford pointing at the kids.

Not once does he express any remorse about having the guy killed.

eht slat meit
04-13-2015, 01:30 AM
But winding him up is so much fun!

Thanks for the clue that you're doing drive-bys on the Troll-E express. I'd hate to think that anyone was really in as much buttpain as you were showing in response to my post.

Nazbaque
04-13-2015, 01:47 AM
Thanks for the clue that you're doing drive-bys on the Troll-E express. I'd hate to think that anyone was really in as much buttpain as you were showing in response to my post.

Dance, my puppet, dance

DahLliA
04-13-2015, 04:49 AM
The solution to all this is very simple.

The cops just need to start shooting more white people.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-13-2015, 04:59 AM
Ok, what I'm about to say is anecdotal, second-hand story and not documented in any way - so take this with a considerable amount of salt.

I hear from more and more people who are visiting US, and to whom I note that I may go over there soon-ish, to beware of the cops. To make no moves that may be construed as "threatening", to always keep my hands visible, to not carry any amount of cash on me, but at all times my passport and visa; and if I get stopped to nod and go along with whatever it is they say. Now, from actual personal experience, the only thing missing from this list of advice and the list of advice you get when travelling to Russia is to have a bottle of vodka or pre-counted wad of money available for some... lubrication. Point being, the general perception of the US police force is that of extreme fear. The perception is that they're likely to shoot you on sight, with little or no provocation. They're likely to be more focused on using force than on keeping peace. And the perception is, that this has gotten gradually worse with no sign of reversal over the last few years.

By the way, the people saying this are colleagues from Europe and Canada - highly educated, highly paid, and mostly white people, used to lots of business travel all over the world, who are unlikely to go wandering about in dodgy neighbourhoods.

Daekyras
04-13-2015, 06:33 AM
By the way, the people saying this are colleagues from Europe and Canada - highly educated, highly paid, and mostly white people, used to lots of business travel all over the world, who are unlikely to go wandering about in dodgy neighbourhoods.

From the sounds of it EVERY neighbourhood should be considered a dodgy neighbourhood.

I go to, or went to, the states regularly enough. Lived there as a college student for a year as well. I never felt threatened by the cops. Although it must be pointed out that I may be the whitest whitey that ever lived.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-13-2015, 07:32 AM
From the sounds of it EVERY neighbourhood should be considered a dodgy neighbourhood.

I go to, or went to, the states regularly enough. Lived there as a college student for a year as well. I never felt threatened by the cops. Although it must be pointed out that I may be the whitest whitey that ever lived.

Considering that these are people that have regularly travelled to countries such as Bolivia, Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Australia, Colombia, USA, Great Britain, Turkey, South Africa... Meaning, pretty literally all over the world - I find it noteworthy that these people feel the need to note US police force as something to be wary of. You know, in the same breath that they note that in South Africa you really should be driving around in an armored vehicle if you're going anywhere outside of the capital; or that in Turkey it's increasingly difficult to get any alcohol.

Daekyras
04-13-2015, 07:36 AM
Considering that these are people that have regularly travelled to countries such as Bolivia,Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Australia, Colombia, USA, Great Britain, Turkey, South Africa... Meaning, pretty literally all over the world - I find it noteworthy that these people feel the need to note US police force as something to be wary of. You know, in the same breath that they note that in South Africa you really should be driving around in an armored vehicle if you're going anywhere outside of the capital; or that in Turkey it's increasingly difficult to get any alcohol.

Oh I don't doubt it- I meant that if the police are like that then everywhere must be considered dodgy.

I bolded the places on the list I've never been to. Dammit. Now I want to start travelling again!

yks 6nnetu hing
04-13-2015, 07:51 AM
Oh I don't doubt it- I meant that if the police are like that then everywhere must be considered dodgy.

I bolded the places on the list I've never been to. Dammit. Now I want to start travelling again!

right. yes. That was kind of my point too. On this thread, and very many others on similar topics, I see people say something to the effect of "but then don't go to dodgy parts of town"... which, while valid advice, is still victim-blaming. There is (or rather, should be) no excuse for excessive use of force by the police, no matter in what part of town you are.

Nazbaque
04-13-2015, 08:22 AM
right. yes. That was kind of my point too. On this thread, and very many others on similar topics, I see people say something to the effect of "but then don't go to dodgy parts of town"... which, while valid advice, is still victim-blaming. There is (or rather, should be) no excuse for excessive use of force by the police, no matter in what part of town you are.

The definition of excessive is the problem here. It is by necessity something that varies case by case as in the other end we have the broken tail light where even drawing the gun is already excessive and in the other end there is the hostage situation where one must choose between letting a hostage die and killing a criminal with your own hands.

You can define excessive by category but your average cop isn't paid well enough to have an education for systems that complicated. And that is in my opinion one of the roots of the problem. That a profession this vital to the proper working of society isn't made attractive for people capable of dealing with its more subtle aspects. If you want people with higher moral standards and minds willing to deal with the fine details of right and wrong, you've got to pay for it and if you don't, you eventually get shit like this.

Davian93
04-13-2015, 08:38 AM
I have never followed Yahoo. But then, I can't stand most media outlets and thus I don't expect much from them unless they are older than me. Those guys get no slack.

I would agree that the 911 caller was primarily responsible for the situation, but that doesn't mean the cops conducted themselves admirably.

Isn't Yahoo News basically The Blaze-lite at this point? I dont read it at all but that's what I've heard...

Davian93
04-13-2015, 08:42 AM
Ok, what I'm about to say is anecdotal, second-hand story and not documented in any way - so take this with a considerable amount of salt.

I hear from more and more people who are visiting US, and to whom I note that I may go over there soon-ish, to beware of the cops. To make no moves that may be construed as "threatening", to always keep my hands visible, to not carry any amount of cash on me, but at all times my passport and visa; and if I get stopped to nod and go along with whatever it is they say. Now, from actual personal experience, the only thing missing from this list of advice and the list of advice you get when travelling to Russia is to have a bottle of vodka or pre-counted wad of money available for some... lubrication. Point being, the general perception of the US police force is that of extreme fear. The perception is that they're likely to shoot you on sight, with little or no provocation. They're likely to be more focused on using force than on keeping peace. And the perception is, that this has gotten gradually worse with no sign of reversal over the last few years.

By the way, the people saying this are colleagues from Europe and Canada - highly educated, highly paid, and mostly white people, used to lots of business travel all over the world, who are unlikely to go wandering about in dodgy neighbourhoods.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that advice. This is what happens when you allow your local police to basically become para-military units. They're all wannabe soldiers (and in many cases ex-military) so their first instinct is to use force and then ask questions.

Being in the military does not give you the experience to be law enforcement. It does teach you to kill/blow up things that threaten you or your fellow "soldiers"...in this case, your fellow police officers.

Terez
04-13-2015, 10:37 AM
I take it you haven't seen the video cobbled together with the dispatch call. The murderous little piece of shit is on the phone with the dispatcher the entire time, and as soon as he finds out the cops are in the store, he tells the dispatcher that Crawford is pointing it at a couple kids who walked by, and within one minute, the cops pinpoint him at the front of the store and shoot him when he doesn't respond by dropping the gun.
There is a difference between pointing a gun at someone and shooting them. The whole "pointing it at people" thing should be a big clue as it seems to be a hallmark of people who aren't actually dangerous.

eht slat meit
04-13-2015, 12:45 PM
There is a difference between pointing a gun at someone and shooting them. The whole "pointing it at people" thing should be a big clue as it seems to be a hallmark of people who aren't actually dangerous.

The most dangerous people are those stupid enough to load a weapon and begin pointing it at people, no matter what their intent. That's a fundamental rule of gun ownership.

More to the point, to suggest it's a clue that someone isn't dangerous solely because they haven't shot anyone with it within a 10 minute period is to put into play a whole range of assumptions that police have no business making.

Had Crawford actually been an aggressor and been given the benefit of the doubt long enough to murder that kid Ritchie claimed was watching, every single one of those cops should have lost their jobs.

Davian93
04-13-2015, 01:07 PM
First rule of gun ownership is "never point it at something unless you plan to use it"

Well, perhaps not the first rule as the first rule is really "always assume a gun is loaded" but its definitely in the top 3.

Basically, if you point a weapon at someone, don't be surprised if you are gunned down as a result.

Terez
04-13-2015, 01:58 PM
The most dangerous people are those stupid enough to load a weapon and begin pointing it at people, no matter what their intent. That's a fundamental rule of gun ownership.
I'd say that people who load a gun and begin shooting people with it are far more dangerous.

More to the point, to suggest it's a clue that someone isn't dangerous solely because they haven't shot anyone with it within a 10 minute period is to put into play a whole range of assumptions that police have no business making.
Have no business making? It's their job to determine who is dangerous and who isn't. It's reckless and stupid to take any 911 caller 100% at their word.

Davian93
04-13-2015, 08:08 PM
Have no business making? It's their job to determine who is dangerous and who isn't. It's reckless and stupid to take any 911 caller 100% at their word.

THIS.

I chalk it up, once again, to the growing military mentality among local cops. In the army, that type of mentality is great. Kill the threat, Kill the perceived threat, kill the possible threat. Don't take chances. That DOES NOT work in law enforcement.

eht slat meit
04-13-2015, 09:10 PM
I'd say that people who load a gun and begin shooting people with it are far more dangerous.

I'm sure there's probably statistics for it, so I feel safe in saying that more small children die to ignorant kids and users in general than small children die to acts of deliberate murder. Hell, it takes a real throwback like the Sandy Hook goblin to even consider doing it on purpose.


Have no business making? It's their job to determine who is dangerous and who isn't. It's reckless and stupid to take any 911 caller 100% at their word.

The difference being between assumption and assessment. Assumption leads down the pass of preconceived notions about motives directly into racism. Assessment takes legitimate factors into accounts and bases a conclusion on them. Whether a guy with a gun is going to shoot or not is pure speculation. The cops did NOT take the 911 caller 100% at his word, and in fact there are parts of the audio that suggest they think it may be bs. Then they actually go in, find a guy with a gun. Boom, corroboration of gun. Multiple children present, specifically of the woman Ritchie is responsible for the death of. You can see them going back in right beforehand. Boom, 2 parts corroborated. Right up to the second he is shot, even while he's arguing with the cops, he is swinging that gun around, because he's not thinking about what he's doing. Nothing especially wrong with that, but.... that's lethal.

Arguing with the cops while you have a gun in your hand is stupid as hell if you know what you're doing, but Crawford's mitigating circumstance is that he was set up to die.

Assessment is working with legitimate factors you know, not making baseless speculations in motives and possibilities that will typically end up falling back on the worst elements of racism.

Ozymandias
04-13-2015, 09:30 PM
Police already do use excessive force on everyone. The reason it's more noticeable towards minorities such as blacks is because that's what the media cares about. The liberal media selectively chooses stories and blows them out of proportion for a larger purpose. Since the country has had a history of slavery and inequality, it's easy to pull out and examine every thing that goes against a black person. There has been slavery and inequality throughout the world since the beginning of time, but here in America we continue to harp on and on with racism and inequality towards blacks when it's unnecessary. There is still room for improvement, and it's not like it should never be talked about, because it certainly should, but it has gotten out of control and pissing people off who have common sense. There are good cops and there are bad cops. Sometimes an innocent white person gets hurt/killed, and sometimes an innocent black person gets hurt/killed. That's life. Most of the time we don't know the circumstances but the media creates something (such as the hands up, don't shoot fantasy) and then people distort facts. I agree, police forces need to be better trained, but you can understand why some may be on edge when they go into areas that are known for violence. That doesn't excuse them, but does add some context to certain circumstances. From what we know of the shooting in South Carolina recently, that should never have been done and now the cop is thankfully facing the consequences.

I'm not sure how you take that position when the DOJ is issuing reports claiming that racism is basically institutionalized in law enforcement in municipalities like Ferguson. Not a huge leap of either faith or common sense to know that it happens on a widespread basis elsewhere.

Just looking at incarceration rates tells you that racism is alive an as an institution in our halls of justice.

Lupusdeusest
04-14-2015, 12:06 AM
Tamir Rice - another instance of misuse of 911 call, except in that case they did not pass on the possible toy nature of the weapon.
No warning, no options given.

GonzoTheGreat
04-14-2015, 05:06 AM
Arguing with the cops while you have a gun in your hand is stupid as hell if you know what you're doing, but Crawford's mitigating circumstance is that he was set up to die.
But he did not have a gun in his hand, he had a toy in his hand. The cops assumed he had a gun, without actually really assessing whether it was a gun or a toy.
So, based on their assumption, not on reality, they chose to believe that he was a thread and killed him. Not for anything he did wrong, but for their chosen belief.

Nazbaque
04-14-2015, 05:18 AM
But he did not have a gun in his hand, he had a toy in his hand. The cops assumed he had a gun, without actually really assessing whether it was a gun or a toy.
So, based on their assumption, not on reality, they chose to believe that he was a thread and killed him. Not for anything he did wrong, but for their chosen belief.

Are cops gonna kill theoryland?:(:(

Daekyras
04-14-2015, 05:32 AM
But he did not have a gun in his hand, he had a toy in his hand. The cops assumed he had a gun, without actually really assessing whether it was a gun or a toy.
So, based on their assumption, not on reality, they chose to believe that he was a thread and killed him. Not for anything he did wrong, but for their chosen belief.

Was there any dialogue between crawford and the police in this incident?

I mean if they asked him to drop the weapon and he didn't it is mitigating for the officers.

Did they just shoot on sight??

GonzoTheGreat
04-14-2015, 06:26 AM
Was there any dialogue between crawford and the police in this incident?

I mean if they asked him to drop the weapon and he didn't it is mitigating for the officers.
If he knew they were speaking to him at all, of course.

Suppose you're shopping in a toy store, and someone somewhere yells "Drop it!" would you then drop whatever you had in your hands, or would you look around to see what was going on, where and what (if anything) you had to do in consequence?

From what I remember reading of the incident, the police may have said "Drop it!" or even "Drop the gun!", but it is not at all clear that the suspect knew he was a suspect before the bullets hit him.