No need for people to be liars to be wrong. See more here, here, and here for reasons why they’re wrong.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? And if so, do you believe it’s okay for cops to kill poorly adjusted kids for any reason? If not, is it possible that (like all the rest of American history, since in general black people complaining about mistreatment were always right, and their white critics were always wrong) black people are actually correct that mistreatment and unwarranted brutality might actually be a serious problem in many law enforcement organizations around the country?
But – as per the examples given upthread – most black people disagreed with the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case, and most white people realized it was the right call. And most black people disagreed with the verdict in the Michael Brown case, and most white people realized it was the right call. And I see BLM has been doing their thing in the wake of Jamar Clark’s shooting, and I’m not a bit surprised.
I like how you lead with an “in general” there, but it just seems like a convenient way to say sure, they’re incorrect when they actually point at and rally around specific cases – and, y’know, full marks to their white critics who point that out – but they’ve always been right in, like, a more nebulous sense, or something.
My point is that most black Americans believe that law enforcement disparately treats black people poorly in the US. Though we don’t have polling from the 19th century, I think it’s entirely reasonable to conclude that literally every single time in American history that most black Americans believed that black people in America were being mistreated in some way, they were correct, and literally every single time their white critics were wrong. I think it’s pretty unlikely that suddenly this will be different.
I think this rule holds for pretty much any minority in US history – Native Americans, gays, etc.; any time most members of a minority group believe that they were being mistreated in America, they were right.
Since white people are so good at predicting “the right ending” for these trials, I can now understand why whites are so angry at black protesters for demanding that they even take place (or a proper investigation to boot!)
Oh those silly blacks, whenever will they learn? :o
But the majority of black people still came to the wrong conclusion after verdicts came in. They weren’t just wrong beforehand; polls showed they kept on being wrong once the evidence was presented and made public. The numbers were, y’know, the reverse of all those No-Seriously-Was-OJ-Simpson-Innocent polls back when.
No, I’m sure that the blacks who demanded the merger function of your system of justice had no doubts as to its final conclusion. While your faith in the righteousness of the end result is strong, its obvious that the bitter fight in demanding that the wheels of justice turn removes legitimacy in the conclusion.
In other words, more blacks would have faith in your system if it wasn’t so broken. Also your personal failure to see its (quite obvious) flaws harms the credibility of your personal evaluation of the fairness of its conclusion.
I wouldn’t call it “faith”. I looked at the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case. I looked at the evidence in the Michael Brown case. Model of objectivity that I am, I of course concluded that the courts made the right call – not because of “faith”, but because of an impartial weighing of the facts on my way to a correct and fair conclusion.
Oh, is – are we doing this? Okay.
“Nuh-uh, it’s your personal evaluation that’s the result of a personal failure!”
To be clear-- do you believe that the police and courts are capable of biased actions and unjust results, specifically in the treatment of black criminal suspects? If so, could you give an example?
Uh, okay. I mean, as per the thread title, I thought the idea was to weigh in on whether BLM’s actions are foolish; and, in my opinion, it’s foolish that BLM trumpets individual cases that don’t deserve to be trumpeted; and, given that I of course stipulated a ‘sure’ to your first question, I don’t see how further detail is relevant: if such actions are foolish, they’re foolish regardless.
But, how about this: first, take the well-known crack-versus-powder discrepancy on cocaine, which leads to well-documented racial divergences. And then throw in the well-publicized stop-and-frisk policy of the NYPD, which has of course been shown to disproportionately focus on black individuals. Which means that, as requested, you’ve got biased actions and unjust results: all else being equal, a black man is explicitly more likely to be stopped and frisked because of his race – and, if caught with cocaine, the odds say he’s more likely to face harsh sentencing.
But those are patterns of explicitly legal procedures (biased, to be sure). I am trying to establish whether you really do analyze individual cases, such as BLM has highlighted, the way you claim, or are capable of discernment in doing it.
Has there ~ever~ been a specific case of alleged police brutality or prosecutorial misconduct, biased against a black person, that you took a closer look at and did not conclude that law enforcement’s actions were justified and fair?
Well, I wouldn’t mind establishing your bona fides as well. I’ve answered two of your questions; would you mind showing whether you’re “capable of discernment” with regard to, say, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Y’know, so long as we’re talking about the priorities and actions of BLM?
BLM foolishly keeps bringing innocuous ones to my attention, which leaves me with less time than I’d like to look into other ones. But John McNeil seems to fit the bill; he got an unfair trial, he deserved better from the prosecutor and et cetera, and I’d bet all the money I’ve got that a white man wouldn’t have been treated like that.
They do bring some issues that have to be addressed, but on the other hand, they are anarchists and maybe even communists. They want to abolish Wall Street, probably the lifestyle of America and probably want an all black government. My friends HATES them. If they ever came in my friends neck of the woods, they would not make it out alive, and that is a fact. I want to hear more from this movement, and I hope that it is not another grifter movement.
More fiction, I’m pretty sure. If you’d care to back it up with cites, feel free.
The way that “ties to communists” is such a frequent accusation probably means that if I had a third grade teacher whose dad once went to a socialist hippies meeting, then I’d have “ties to communists”.
Bruh, I’m just saying that the movement has a problem right now. They’re seen as communists and they’re being funded by Revcom. The movement has a far way to go. I want to like them, but they want to hurt the free market.