Happy now BLM?

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm going to sit there and claim that "the African-American community"* has inculcated the belief in the various police departments that they are more violent and dangerous and self-defence is a bigger issue, yes absolutely. The Police are reacting to consistently the most violent criminal offenders in the nation, not just rioters.

* I hate that phrase, its not a community, it's criminals who are African-American not the entire community that are the issue - just as its the bad eggs within the Police that are the issue too.

Rand, do everyone a favor and actually read the material someone is replying to before you think to interject. Lewk talked about, and I replied to, the COMMUNITY REACTION to police action in the black community. You want to post your stream of consciousness like GGT, go ahead, but don't try and couch it as a reply to me.

[RandBlade]

Rand, do everyone a favor and actually read the material someone is replying to before you think to interject. Lewk talked about, and I replied to, the COMMUNITY REACTION to police action in the black community. You want to post your stream of consciousness like GGT, go ahead, but don't try and couch it as a reply to me.

I understand that, however what I fail to understand is how you can take that in isolation from the context the Police are acting in. The actions of the Police is the one side of the coin, the violent community of criminals the Police deal with every day is the other. I don't understand how you can just take one side alone and view it as being uniquely responsible.

[Steely Glint]

I don't understand how you can just take one side alone and view it as being uniquely responsible.

Because one "side" are criminals, and the other are fucking officers of the law armed and empowered by the state?

[Loki]

I understand that, however what I fail to understand is how you can take that in isolation from the context the Police are acting in. The actions of the Police is the one side of the coin, the violent community of criminals the Police deal with every day is the other. I don't understand how you can just take one side alone and view it as being uniquely responsible.

If my students don't do their work, I shouldn't have to do my work. And of course I should get paid the same as before.

[RandBlade]

Because one "side" are criminals, and the other are fucking officers of the law armed and empowered by the state?

Who are armed and empowered because of the criminals and to deal with the criminals. That is their job. You want to isolate people doing their job (badly or otherwise) from that which they were employed to deal with, because they are employed to deal with it by the state?

If my students don't do their work, I shouldn't have to do my work. And of course I should get paid the same as before.

Nobody is saying that. But your not doing your work is not a justification for your students not doing theirs, especially if your students aren't doing work in every other lecturers class too.

[RandBlade]

So do I. I also want, try and follow along here as this may also be quite a difficult concept, them to stop being killed themselves too. It's all rather Newtonian.

[LittleFuzzy]

I understand that, however what I fail to understand is how you can take that in isolation from the context the Police are acting in. The actions of the Police is the one side of the coin, the violent community of criminals the Police deal with every day is the other. I don't understand how you can just take one side alone and view it as being uniquely responsible.

Managing their relations with the community is part of their job. Dealing with those violent offenders and protecting the rest of the community from them is also part of their job. At every level of consideration wrt what leads to the community reactions, the responsibility is with the police. They are uniquely responsible because every single part of it is their literal area of responsibility.

[Lewkowski]

Managing their relations with the community is part of their job. Dealing with those violent offenders and protecting the rest of the community from them is also part of their job. At every level of consideration wrt what leads to the community reactions, the responsibility is with the police. They are uniquely responsible because every single part of it is their literal area of responsibility.

I'm confused by what you mean 'that is part of their job.' Because it is someone's job you can ignore the very real dangers and stressers inherit to the situation? Asking people to simply 'do their job' in places that regularly have shot outs with people who attack emergency vehicles (firefighters, ambulances) is pretty absurd. You can't ignore what difficulties the police just trying to 'do their job.'

[RandBlade]

Managing their relations with the community is part of their job. Dealing with those violent offenders and protecting the rest of the community from them is also part of their job. At every level of consideration wrt what leads to the community reactions, the responsibility is with the police. They are uniquely responsible because every single part of it is their literal area of responsibility.

Just because it is their area of responsibility job wise does not mean and never has meant they are uniquely responsible. That's like saying 9/11 and every other terrorist attack was uniquely the responsibility of the intelligence services because it is their responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks, that is their job, so therefore the terrorists are not at all responsible themselves

Yes the Police are responsible, but so too are the criminals. Just because the Police have the job of dealing with them does not excise any responsibility from those that are committing crimes and creating a dangerous environment for the public and the Police. Again you need to look at the full picture not half of it.

[Steely Glint]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7239291.html

Officers ordered Frazier to get on the ground, to which he responded, “Leave me alone,” according to his nephew Quartaze Woodard. When order to the ground once more, Frazier gave them the same response. Police then opened fire, according to Mr Woodard.

[Aimless]

Man, cops have been acting like shitheads towards innocent black people and terrorizing black communities since time immemorial. Moreover, there has, for decades, been a worrying trend among American cops towards using excessive and frequently lethal force against not only black people but people in general. But sure let's focus on how Black people are responsible for the racial prejudices and crappy training of American cops.

[Lewkowski]

Man, cops have been acting like shitheads towards innocent black people and terrorizing black communities since time immemorial. Moreover, there has, for decades, been a worrying trend among American cops towards using excessive and frequently lethal force against not only black people but people in general. But sure let's focus on how Black people are responsible for the racial prejudices and crappy training of American cops.

At least you admit it isn't solely based on race like most liberals. There have been bad police shoots that didn't involve minorities no cries of racism are sounded. Why is it whenever a minority individual is on the receiving end of a bad shoot the automatic assumption is racial bias?

[Aimless]

At least you admit it isn't solely based on race like most liberals. There have been bad police shoots that didn't involve minorities no cries of racism are sounded. Why is it whenever a minority individual is on the receiving end of a bad shoot the automatic assumption is racial bias?

No liberals think that racism is the only problem with American cops. In fact, no human being thinks that. What kind of a bizarre fantasy world do you live in?

[Steely Glint]

It must really suck to be trying to defend the police in America.

HEADLINE: American police fatally shoot black man unarmed black man because they thought he had a gun, but turned out to just be a cell phone

"That's pretty sad, but there are a lot of guns and gun violence in America so you can hardly blame them for coming to the wrong conclusion"

HEADLINE: American police fatally shoot unarmed black man with his hands in the air who was shouting "don't shoot me I'm unarmed"

"Obviously, that's pretty terrible but it was just one officer"

HEADLINE: American police walk past a black man's house and shoot him 12 times because dropped a spoon, and they thought it was a gunshot

"When you think about it, aren't BLM the real racists?"

HEADLINE: American police tase a black man who was putting out the garbage in front his home, then shot him, then his dog, then dynamite his house, then call in an air strike which levels the entire block, claiming they felt threatened

"police have to put their lives on the line every day, you know"

HEADLINE: American shoot disabled black man with no arms or legs in the face 35 times. they say he was reaching for a weapon.

"Just a few bad apples"

HEADLINE: American police conduct a spree killing through a shopping mall, shooting all the black men they can see

"yeah, but what about black on black violence?"

HEADLINE: American police shoot the entire black population of Florida, claiming they were resisting arrest

"..."

Like, at what point do you stop, revise your original position actually admit there's a problem?

[Aimless]

You don't think it a little telling that he was shot in the face? Pretty sure he was reaching for it with his mouth. You shouldn't underestimate how dangerous that is. Limbless people are really fast with their heads, all it takes is a fraction of a second and bam an innocent police officer is dead.

[Loki]

http://chrisblattman.com/2016/09/16/14593/

More isolated incidents.

[Steely Glint]

And where does shooting a guy trying to eat his dinner or beating up a Google manager fit into that?

[RandBlade]

It doesn't. When did I defend that?

[Steely Glint]

This is the behaviour BLM and everyone else in this thread is complaining about. Did you just admit everything you've been saying on this topic is actually just a massive derailment tactic?

[RandBlade]

This is the behaviour BLM and everyone else in this thread is complaining about. Did you just admit everything you've been saying on this topic is actually just a massive derailment tactic?

No my position the whole thread is that the whole picture needs looking at and that unacceptable behaviour needs tackling on all sides I've suggested mandatory body cams and abolishing the second amendment as part of that. Simply saying that the Police have too much of a justified reason to pull the trigger because of the very real grave danger they face does not mean they are always justified when they do.

If a clearly unarmed man is gunned down then that should be dealt with properly. The problem is that in America too often it is not clear. In that last link of which I know too little to comment the relative who called the police said the man who ended up getting shot was armed. I wish we had body cams to know what happened next rather than just hearsay.

[Steely Glint]

No my position the whole thread is that the whole picture needs looking at and that unacceptable behaviour needs tackling on all sides I've suggested mandatory body cams and abolishing the second amendment as part of that. Simply saying that the Police have too much of a justified reason to pull the trigger because of the very real grave danger they face does not mean they are always justified when they do.

If a clearly unarmed man is gunned down then that should be dealt with properly. The problem is that in America too often it is not clear. In that last link of which I know too little to comment the relative who called the police said the man who ended up getting shot was armed. I wish we had body cams to know what happened next rather than just hearsay.

If you accept that some of the behavior cited in this thread is unacceptable, then what relevance is the looking at the whole picture?

There are no possible mitigating circumstances that can justify the behavior Ali Afshar experienced. Although the link I cited mentioned that they heard a report that the guy had a gun, there are no possible mitigating circumstances that can justify shooting someone dead the instant you see them because you heard from someone that they might have a gun. They have fucking eyes. They can see if the guy is or isn't carrying anything.

You say "it should be dealt with properly" if someone clearly unarmed is shot. The problem is that it very rarely is in America, and this is a big part of what Black Lives Matter is complaining about. Your response is to equivocate and waffle on about some nebulous 'wider picture' and talk about "sides" like all American blacks are somehow responsible for the criminal actions of anyone with the same skin colour and should expect to take a bit of shit now and again from the police as recompense. It just goes to show the truth behind the name of the movement.

[Loki]

Apparently, we should be holding the police to the same standards we hold criminal gangs.

[Aimless]

Apparently, we should be holding the police to the same standards we hold criminal gangs.

Perhaps appropriate, all things considered

[Steely Glint]

Apparently, we should be holding the police to the same standards we hold criminal gangs.

A lower standard, in fact. You wouldn't catch Randblade or Lewkowski applying the same "yeah, it's wrong but what about [x]" response to criminal gangs.

[RandBlade]

Sure the criminals share responsible. But guess what, they're criminals. The fact that criminals act with no sense of responsibility or accountability toward the rest of us is why we have the police in the first place. Their function is to step in and provide what the criminals are taking away from the community. Instead, they're doubling down on the effect the criminals have and are making things worse.

I dispute the claim they're making things worse. As demonstrated by rising crime rates when the police step back ... they may be far from perfect but they're not in the round making things worse.

I'm not asking anyone to ignore anything. But that doesn't mean that what arises from their actions ceases to be their responsibility.

Agreed 100%.

Apparently, we should be holding the police to the same standards we hold criminal gangs.

Sure. If it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a law's been broken, then punish the offender. What's objectionable about that?

If you accept that some of the behavior cited in this thread is unacceptable, then what relevance is the looking at the whole picture?

If you're throwing claims around that "the police made this bed" or "the police are making the situation worse" then you need to look at the whole picture or your claim is nonsense.

There are no possible mitigating circumstances that can justify the behavior Ali Afshar experienced.

I completely agree, if that is what really happened. No doubt the other party have a different story to tell. We should have body cams as standard as I have said repeatedly for months including earlier today that could demonstrate if that really happened and get a conviction if it did.

Although the link I cited mentioned that they heard a report that the guy had a gun, there are no possible mitigating circumstances that can justify shooting someone dead the instant you see them because you heard from someone that they might have a gun. They have fucking eyes. They can see if the guy is or isn't carrying anything.

Agreed. But the problem is that if you're called and told someone has a gun and then perhaps they are aggressive when you confront them and then reach for a pocket, what are you realistically supposed to do? Here in the UK we are lucky to have a relatively disarmed populace where the biggest risk most of the time is a knife and so the police respond with a taser rather than bullets. That isn't the same in the USA.

You say "it should be dealt with properly" if someone clearly unarmed is shot. The problem is that it very rarely is in America, and this is a big part of what Black Lives Matter is complaining about. Your response is to equivocate and waffle on about some nebulous 'wider picture' and talk about "sides" like all American blacks are somehow responsible for the criminal actions of anyone with the same skin colour and should expect to take a bit of shit now and again from the police as recompense. It just goes to show the truth behind the name of the movement.

No I'm saying you need to look at the context. If you think someone is armed and aggressive and going to shoot you're going to be much quicker at pulling the trigger.

[Steely Glint]

If you're throwing claims around that "the police made this bed" or "the police are making the situation worse" then you need to look at the whole picture or your claim is nonsense.

The only 'situation' here is the police's habit of killing young black men for no reason. I fail to see how it could be anything other than of their own making.

I completely agree, if that is what really happened. No doubt the other party have a different story to tell. We should have body cams as standard as I have said repeatedly for months including earlier today that could demonstrate if that really happened and get a conviction if it did.

His is hardly the first story of that kind we've heard, nor will it be the last. At what point do you just go ahead and admit there's a problem, and that problem comes from the behavior of a too large proportion of police officers in America?

Agreed. But the problem is that if you're called and told someone has a gun and then perhaps they are aggressive when you confront them and then reach for a pocket, what are you realistically supposed to do?

You should probably wait till you actually see a gun in their hand before you open fire.

I'm not a trained fire arms officer, though.

Then again, neither are the vast majority of American officers:

Constables who carry firearms, called Authorised Firearms Officers or AFOs, are selected even more carefully and have years of experience before they can even apply. Many are already qualified as pursuit drivers because the Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs) they operate have to respond quickly and sometimes over significant distances. Prospective AFOs first spend a week becoming familiar with the 9mm Glock pistol and H&K MP5 automatic rifle, then spend another six weeks in tactical training. Once qualified, they attend one full day of firearms refresher training each month and a two-week course each year [...]

U.S. cops get 40-80 hours of firearms training in the academy, and may not actually train with their weapons again for years. They do qualify periodically (sometimes as infrequently as once per year) in a marksmanship course of 50 rounds or so, but those who fail to pass typically just repeat the course until they qualify. Most U.S. police agencies regard the ammunition necessary for firearms training to be too expensive to provide regular firearms training. U.S. police carry their firearms all the time, on duty and off, and need no supervisory authorization to deploy them.

Here in the UK we are lucky to have a relatively disarmed populace where the biggest risk most of the time is a knife and so the police respond with a taser rather than bullets. That isn't the same in the USA.

Most UK police don't carry tasers.

No I'm saying you need to look at the context. If you think someone is armed and aggressive and going to shoot you're going to be much quicker at pulling the trigger.

The problem with that is in the minds of many American police, and frankly, many Americans, simply having black skin is enough for them to 'think' you're armed and aggressive.

[LittleFuzzy]

I dispute the claim they're making things worse. As demonstrated by rising crime rates when the police step back ... they may be far from perfect but they're not in the round making things worse.

If you the only thing you consider to qualify as "making things worse" is crime rate than no. Their actions are, almost by definition, not crime. Which in a number of the profiled examples is part of what is causing this ire. But they are not making these communities feel safer, which is what we're referring to. The police make their lives worse, whether or not they've committed any crimes. They are harassed. They are shot in their backyards when unarmed. They are shot when the policeman who does the shooting is heard to say 'I don't know' when asked why he shot the guy. There is a fucking problem, the POLICE created it, and it's not going to get fixed until they fucking change.

It wasn't a philosopher but a poet, Juvenal, who gave us "who guards the guardians" but it might as well be by Plato because it is a real issue. In many places and most of the time, the systems we've created to deal with the way positions with power over others attract bullies, petty despots, and other nasty-minded or authoritarian types work. It is not working here in far too many places.

[RandBlade]

The only 'situation' here is the police's habit of killing young black men for no reason. I fail to see how it could be anything other than of their own making.

That is the "only" 'situation' is it?

So the dozens and dozens of Police killed every single year by gunfire is not a 'situation'?
The hundreds of police that are killed through all means is not a 'situation'?
The tens of of Americans killed by gunfire generally is not 'situation'?

When did these other issues stop being 'situations'?

[Steely Glint]

123 American police died in 2015. 41 of those were by gunfire. Which is clearly 41 too many. But against the 900,000 serving police officers that isn't that many. It certainly compares favorably with the 1100 plus young black men they managed to shoot in the same period.

I believe that's a ratio of 4.5 deaths per 100,000 officers. Which actually compares favorably with the population of the US as a whole, which experiences nearly 10 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Cops are less likely to be shot than everyone else, not more.

So, yes, 41 US officers killed by guns in 2015 is 41 too many, but the idea that American police need the right to shoot anyone who looks at them funny or looks """"threatening"""" because their job is just that dangerous... no. Rampant fantasy and nothing more.

[Aimless]

I believe that's a ratio of 4.5 deaths per 100,000 officers. Which actually compares favorably with the population of the US as a whole, which experiences nearly 10 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Cops are less likely to be shot than everyone else, not more.

Getting safer yet more trigger-happy for every year.