# Are the actions of BLM wise or foolish? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 22, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278 "2015-11-22T15:18:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/101 "2015-11-30T10:29:45Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Because your average achieving black student is given _better_ opportunities than their white or Asian peers even when the others are significantly better students, yet you speak as if the black student is the victim of racism rather than the beneficiary. Affirmative action is meant to make up for systemic biases and other forms of discrimination, not to give anyone a leg up. Are you seriously saying that black people in America don’t face racism? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/102 "2015-11-30T11:02:39Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > I hope I’m not being politically incorrect here, and let me state up front that Laquan was gunned down when it sure appears on video he wasn’t a direct threat, and that the wheels of justice are (slowly) grinding on the officer in question and that’s a good thing. That said, Laquan was not _innocent_ since he had a knife out, met the base description of someone breaking into vehicles, sliced the tire of a police car, etc. From what I have read, I think shooting Laquan McDonald was morally justified. By attacking the police officer’s vehicle, he escalated the threat to the point where his surrender was the only acceptable course of action. Allowing someone armed with a deadly weapon and a willingness to use it to evade capture to keep running means accepting any injury or death he may cause once he gets close enough to someone else that carjacking or hostage taking seem like viable means of continuing to escape. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/103 "2015-11-30T11:06:53Z")
…And shooting him 16 times? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/104 "2015-11-30T11:27:26Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …And shooting him 16 times? If he doesn’t drop the knife after the first 8-10 shots? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/105 "2015-11-30T12:12:29Z")
After the first shot or two, he dropped his entire fucking body. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/106 "2015-11-30T15:46:20Z")
[quote=“ITR\_champion, post:18, topic:738278”] I totally support an effort to tackle police brutality, punish police officers who break rules or laws, and generally reduce prison sentences and the overall effect that policing has on Americans’ lives. But when Black Lives Matter gets in the news, it’s usually not because of they’re doing those things. The bad stuff: [LIST] [li][Complaing](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/20/martin_omalley_apologizes_for_saying_all_lives_matter.html) when anyone says “all lives matter”.[/li][/quote] When people respond to BLM by saying all lives matter, they are clearly missing the point. Perhaps it would be clearer to people like that if the slogan was Black Lives Matter TOO. > [@](#): > > Admittedly I may not be getting the whole story. Perhaps there are some BLM protests that are intelligently chosen and focused on the right things, but what I’m reading about seems to have nothing to do with police brutality, and only with the protestors trying to stroke their own egos. I think you are only being exposed to the asshattery side of BLM. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/107 "2015-11-30T15:50:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Affirmative action is meant to make up for systemic biases and other forms of discrimination, not to give anyone a leg up. Are you seriously saying that black people in America don’t face racism? Affirmative action gives black students a leg up, there’s is no argument to be had. The REASON we give them a leg up is because of all those things you mention (as well as some you didn’t mention). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/108 "2015-11-30T16:11:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > When people respond to BLM by saying all lives matter, they are clearly missing the point. Perhaps it would be clearer to people like that if the slogan was Black Lives Matter TOO. Plus you’d get a really memorable acronym with Black Lives Also Matter. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/109 "2015-11-30T16:41:41Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Plus you’d get a really memorable acronym with Black Lives Also Matter. Yeah, they should go with that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/110 "2015-11-30T16:56:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Affirmative action gives black students a leg up, there’s is no argument to be had. > The REASON we give them a leg up is because of all those things you mention (as well as some you didn’t mention). I was using “leg up” to mean “advantage” – AA is not meant to give anyone an advantage; it’s supposed to make up for disadvantages and get closer to actual equal opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![Cadae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Cadae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cadae)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/111 "2015-11-30T19:17:20Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Plus you’d get a really memorable acronym with Black Lives Also Matter. How about Black Lives Also Means Everyone ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/112 "2015-11-30T23:28:03Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Your complaints are, quite frankly, not useful to the debate. [They’re a distraction](http://www.vox.com/2015/4/9/8370417/police-violence-black-on-black-crime), trying to say, “why worry about X, you should worry about Y instead”. It fundamentally is trying to _derail_ the debate. And it shouldn’t. “What about black on black crime” is not a useful statement. It shows a complete disregard for what the movement is about, the history of what’s going on, and a lack of interest in the subject. It’s not something we should have to discuss in this thread. this “movement”, like the passive aggressive behavior displayed by the occupy wallstreet crowd, has the opposite effect of garnering support. Rev Jackson is the king of race bating nonsense and his presence alone degrades the message. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/113 "2015-11-30T23:39:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I was using “leg up” to mean “advantage” – AA is not meant to give anyone an advantage; it’s supposed to make up for disadvantages and get closer to actual equal opportunity. If large blocks of inner city children drop out of school then there isn’t anything that can be done to fix that. Given the manifesto cited earlier the movement is literally attacking the one thing that would help and that’s a proper nuclear family. Well good luck with the “it takes village to raise a child” screed in the same manifesto. The current result of kids roaming the streets because there are no adults to guide them is the Lord of the Flies violence on the news every night. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/114 "2015-11-30T23:41:48Z")
> [@Cadae](#): > > How about > Black Lives Also Means Everyone How about “stay in school and learn a trade”. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/115 "2015-12-01T05:06:14Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > From what I have read, I think shooting Laquan McDonald was morally justified. By attacking the police officer’s vehicle, he escalated the threat to the point where his surrender was the only acceptable course of action. Allowing someone armed with a deadly weapon and a willingness to use it to evade capture to keep running means accepting any injury or death he may cause once he gets close enough to someone else that carjacking or hostage taking seem like viable means of continuing to escape. The prosecutors who charged Officer Jason Van Dyke with first-degree murder for the shooting [don’t seem to agree with you](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/chicago-police-indictment/417531/). > [@](#): > > Police officials say they found McDonald at the scene carrying a folding knife, that they instructed him to put it down, and that McDonald began walking or jogging away from the officers after not complying with their instructions. The officers followed him onto Pulaski Road, where Van Dyke shot him sixteen times. […] > > In a court filing on Tuesday, the Cook County state attorney’s office revealed that Van Dyke opened fire only 30 seconds after arriving on the scene and just six seconds after exiting his vehicle. “An analysis of the video establishes that 14 to 15 seconds passed from the time [Van Dyke] fired his first shot to clear visual evidence of a final shot,” the filing states. “For approximately 13 of those seconds, McDonald is lying on the ground. Of the eight or more officers on the scene, only [Van Dyke] fired his weapon.” Seriously dude, WTF? A teenager with a pocketknife who had damaged property but not attacked or threatened to attack anyone was _shot in the back_ while _trying to get away_, by an officer who had just jumped out of his car behind the teenager, in the presence of at least seven other officers who didn’t consider the teenager enough of a threat to shoot. A cop basically uses a fleeing suspected carjacker for target practice and you want to call that “morally justified”? What other instances of first-degree murder do you consider “morally justified”? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/116 "2015-12-01T05:39:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Given the manifesto cited earlier the movement is literally attacking the one thing that would help and that’s a proper nuclear family. :dubious: What’s “a proper nuclear family” in your book, and why isn’t, say, an extended/multigenerational/same-sex-couple-headed family equally “proper” for childrearing purposes? Anyway, ISTM that the BLM website’s reference to _“disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another”_ was not actually “attacking” the nuclear family, but rather objecting to the prescription that family structure **has** to be nuclear. Traditionally, in US law that prescription has had some severely biased consequences, as [this article notes:](https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/What_is_a_Family-Conflicting_Messages(1).pdf) > [@](#): > > This preference for the traditional nuclear family was broadly rein- forced by American laws and policies. For example, on the private law side, divorce was not easy to obtain and was widely disfavored; and inheritance laws generally failed to recognize children born out of wedlock. On the public side, the Social Security system, which was put into place in the 1930s, was structured to favor the two-parent family with the father working for wages and the mother at home raising the children. Federal income tax laws favored married couples over unmarried individuals, and, among married couples, financial advantages flowed to single-breadwinner households. Although the welfare system somewhat grudgingly provided financial help to poor single mothers of young children, it was based on the assumption that recipients were unlucky widows. […] > > Some American public programs acknowledge the just-described changing social norms and the changes in family structure they reflect, and accommodate them. That is, the “ideal” family is not specially favored, and a full range of family relationships is recognized. Other programs remain, or have become, hostile to these changes, or at least some of them, and continue to privilege the “ideal” family. […] > > […] it is important to appreciate the limited nature of Social Security reform. First, domestic partners (that is, unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual) still do not qualify for spousal benefits. That is, it does not suffice to live together, to self-identify as a “couple” and to be financially interdependent. […] Second, and perhaps equally important, the benefit structure of Social Security still strongly favors one-earner couples (indeed the spousal benefit for widows has been enhanced over the years). > > U.S. federal income tax law continues to be much like Social Security. […] to gain the financial advantages of filing a joint return, couples must be legally married. Cohabitants, regardless of sex, are ineligible. […] > > Second, as just noted, the benefits of joint-return filing continue to accrue essentially to old-fashioned couples in which one spouse, still typically the husband, earns all (or at least most) of the income. […] > > Finally, there is yet another parallel to Social Security. At the level of the couple, the main tax benefits attached to having children (the CTC and EITC) narrowly define the family by requiring marriage. […] > > […] Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) (post-1996 welfare reform) target unmarried parents (mostly, although not exclusively, mothers). This policy reflects the underlying moral value that where there is a husband, he should be the provider—the “ideal” family again. But unlike the tax and Social Security benefits enjoyed by such families higher on the socioeconomic spectrum, here that ideal is promoted by minimizing aid to families that seem structurally capable of self-support, for fear that substantial social assistance would undermine the man’s willingness to perform his traditional role. As a result, the core structure of the welfare system financially discourages marriage for men who cannot clearly perform the breadwinner role and is harsh on families in which an able-bodied husband suddenly fails in that duty. Objecting to a nuclear family structure _requirement_ that punishes or denigrates other types of families, irrespective of whether they happen to be loving, stable and successful, is not the same thing as “attacking the nuclear family”. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/117 "2015-12-01T05:53:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > this “movement”, like the passive aggressive behavior displayed by the occupy wallstreet crowd, has the opposite effect of garnering support. Rev Jackson is the king of race bating nonsense and his presence alone degrades the message. Yeah, newsflash: protest movements are messy and liable to be disliked by people, _especially_ the privileged they are fighting against. The fact that you don’t like it, that you disapprove, is about as relevant to the conversation as your belief that they should focus more on “black-on-black” crime, for largely the same reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/118 "2015-12-01T06:12:05Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yeah, newsflash: protest movements are messy and liable to be disliked by people, _especially_ the privileged they are fighting against. And ISTM that their effectiveness should be judged more by how much they change awareness and perceptions than by how likeable people find them. Personally, three or four years ago I (middle-aged boringly conventional white woman) had basically no notion that black people were disproportionately at serious risk from law enforcement. I’d heard of “Driving While Black” and I’d seen _Do the Right Thing_, but as far as I remember, the notion of black people (especially men) routinely getting injured or killed when they were not posing an immediate threat, in situations where a white person would most likely not have been treated similarly, is something I vaguely believed more or less went out with Jim Crow laws. I don’t believe that any more, largely because of BLM. Similarly, the OWS movement has brought economic inequality into mainstream discussions, to the point that even Republican Presidential candidates have been expressing concern about it. It is also often credited with a lot of the momentum behind minimum-wage-increase campaigns and other labor activism. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/119 "2015-12-01T06:59:01Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Seriously dude, WTF? A teenager with a pocketknife who had damaged property but not attacked or threatened to attack anyone… He attacked the police. > [@](#): > > A cop basically uses a fleeing suspected carjacker for target practice and you want to call that “morally justified”? What other instances of first-degree murder do you consider “morally justified”? A bit of a double standard there. McDonald is only a “suspected” carjacker even after the police see him attacking a police vehicle with a knife, yet you’ve already decided Van Dyke is guilty of first-degree murder. If you make a deliberate choice to attack the police or an innocent bystander with a deadly weapon, as far as I’m concerned your life is forfeit until you surrender. Don’t want to get shot by the cops? Then either don’t create a situation in which it is unreasonable to believe you are not a deadly threat to the next person you come across, or get out of that situation by showing your willingness to surrender peacefully. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278/120 "2015-12-01T07:23:56Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > He attacked the police. He damaged the tire and windshield of a police **vehicle**. None of the cops there at the time considered that damage enough of a threat to shoot him. You really can’t blur “damage to property” with “threat to persons” in that way. And when Van Dyke shot McDonald, he wasn’t even damaging a vehicle: he was moving away from the scene with his back turned. [QUOTE=Grumman] A bit of a double standard there. McDonald is only a “suspected” carjacker even after the police see him attacking a police vehicle with a knife, yet you’ve already decided Van Dyke is guilty of first-degree murder. [/quote] Okay fine, suspected first-degree murder. Are you saying that if the jury convicts Van Dyke you will no longer consider his acts “morally justified”? [QUOTE=Grumman] If you make a deliberate choice to attack the police or an innocent bystander with a deadly weapon, as far as I’m concerned your life is forfeit until you surrender. [/quote] But McDonald didn’t attack the police or an innocent bystander. You can only pretend he “attacked the police” by equating damage to a car with an attack on a person. [QUOTE=Grumman] Don’t want to get shot by the cops? Then either don’t create a situation in which it is unreasonable to believe you are not a deadly threat to the next person you come across [/QUOTE] But it is **not** unreasonable to believe that a carjacking suspect who hasn’t injured anybody and is leaving the scene is “not a deadly threat to the next person he comes across”. You just don’t get to shoot people who are not putting anybody in imminent danger of severe physical harm. Not even if you’re a cop. Not even if you’re a white cop. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-actions-of-blm-wise-or-foolish/738278.md?page=7)