Which would prove bias, if not for the fact that if you are Black (capitalizing is the new preferred standard for most media organizations, FWIW), you are much more likely to commit murder and other violent crimes.
Ah, you and Abby Johnson
He was shot in the back and he was black. What’s not accurate?
And that would be because … ?
Did you not see my link about half-truths? It leaves out the context that:
–His ex-girlfriend called the police on him because he was violating a restraining order (meaning that he had abused her or threatened her in the past)
–The police had already tased him, but it was ineffective.
–They tackled him, but he broke free.
–He had a knife in the car where he was reaching, which police were aware of.
–They pointed guns at him, told him to stop, grabbed at his shirt, but he determinedly made his way around the car where that knife was and opened the door and reached in.
Yes, after all that, the cop shot him before he could spin around and stab him (or maybe shoot if he also had a gun they didn’t know about). But they could have actually shot him much earlier if they were so keen to do so.
ETA:
I don’t know, but it sure puts a different shine on the whole “more likely to be shot by cops if Black than white”. That’s actually not true on a per-interaction-with-cops basis. And we can’t say it’s unjustified for Black men to have more interactions with cops if they are committing far more violent crimes than white men are. (Just as men in general commit far more violent crime than women, and have more interactions with cops, but we don’t say the latter is due to misandry.)
Please give me where you got this from. I have not seen this, and a google does not turn it up.
This too.
A bunch of cops against a single guy with a knife? Really? he was going to spin around and stab them? He could have backed off outside of knife range, had he actually known about the knife, but he chose not to.
Cite?
Alleged knife.
Well, if you do not know, then you should shut the fuck up about it until you do.
I know I heard or saw it somewhere, but you are right: Google does not turn it up. Here’s what I found:
Police responded to a call that Blake had gone to his girlfriend’s home in Kenosha on Sunday, though he was not supposed to be there, according to the initial investigation.
So let’s call the part about the restraining order unconfirmed. The broad strokes are still the same. You can’t seriously tell me, with a straight face, that this girlfriend called the cops on him for some totally unwarranted reason, with no history of domestic violence or anything, and then he decided to fight with the cops?
And the knife is also just alleged. And we don’t know exactly what happened before the video.
She wanted him to leave, he wanted to leave.
The cops decided to start a fight with him to keep him from leaving.
Per the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
Officers tried to arrest Blake. One of the officers deployed a Taser to try to stop him, but it did not work.[…]
Blake had a knife on the driver’s side floorboard and had no other weapons, the DOJ said in a news release.
I’m going to bet that, like the vast majority of people, you don’t have the slightest clue how big “knife range” actually is.
And let’s get this straight: you are saying that someone who resisted arrest, shrugged off a taser, and wrestled his way out of multiple cops’ grip, then ignored warnings as to stop as he calmly walked over to get into his car…should just be allowed to drive away?!? Police might as well put up a public notice that arrests are optional! JFC
No, I shouldn’t. Criminals can and should be confronted by cops even if we don’t know why they are committing crimes in such high numbers. Which is not to say we shouldn’t try to find out, but public safety is the primary imperative before any of that. And the point was that it’s not a legitimate point to make, that Black men get shot and killed by police out of proportion to their percentage of the population, if the level they commit violent crimes is an even higher disproportionate share! That means that on a per-violent-criminal basis, Black men are being killed less than white men.
If it’s a choice between letting him go and killing him then, yes, they should let him go.
The knife is still just alleged, even if it showed up in a article.
It’s an arguable position. I could imagine some Scandinavian country having a policy like this and it working out okay.
But in this country, it will never fly politically because 80 percent of the public is not going to be okay with this policy. I’m one of the 80 percent, and I would just point out that if you did implement such a policy, you would inevitably get a case where someone blows off police efforts to arrest him, then drives away and goes to kill/rape/maim someone somewhere, or just drives his car into onlookers. And once that happens, there will be hell to pay for the police department that let him go.
What I really wish, and I’ve said this before but got mocked for, is that we would put Manhattan/Apollo Project level money toward making a Star Trek style “phaser set to stun” weapon that worked consistently. We could also stop a lot of mass shootings if we had these in classrooms and so on.
I don’t believe it’s inevitable.
In any case, you’re suggesting killing a man because of something he might do. Trade and actual murder for a pretend one.
And you don’t think there should be hell to pay for that?
As I said, I could see this kind of policy being arguable, and possibly working in some countries. But you also have to acknowledge that it’s radical. I mean, you may as well also just stop training your gun on someone and telling them to “FREEZE!” if everyone knows that it’s just a suggestion. If you point your gun and tell them not to move, or to lie down on the ground or whatever, the clear implication is “if you don’t, I’ll shoot you”.
ETA: Pet peeve–I hate that people have made “murder” a synonym for “homicide”. They are not the same! One is a subset of the other.
Nah, I played with knives in my youth.
But, if you note, two things.
One, in those videos, the person is facing the cop and already has a knife in their possession, which is not the case here.
Two, the cop had the option of not being as close at the cop chose to be. He was not closing on the cop, the cop was closing on him.
If you make the assumption that every black person is a super criminal who has an insatiable blood lust, then I can see your perspective. If you consider them to be human beings who are far more terrified of the cop than the cop has any reason to be of them, then you would start getting the correct one.
If the arrest was not necessary in the first place, and the only reason that they are arresting him is for resisting arrest, then sure, the police should not be doing that.
And since, as you say, a black man is more likely to commit a violent crime than a white person, then cops should consider all black people criminals. Just like Abby Johnson you justify racial prejudice.
So, when I had to trespass someone from my restaurant for assaulting an employee and disrupting my business, he should have been shot, rather than just let him leave peacefully?
My understanding was that he did actually get a court summons for that incident, but that was all above my pay grade at that point, so I don’t know how it played out.
But, he was white, which according to you and Abby Johnson, means that he was less likely to commit a violent offense than if he were black.
Do you think that if the person that committed violence against my store and charges had been black, it would have been more appropriate to escalate to use of force, rather than attempting to reach a peaceful resolution?
No, you really should. Why should the police be confronting criminals when the police themselves are the problem?
As far as I can tell, adding more police to a city does not improve the crime rate. By definition, it cannot, because they need the crime o justify their work, so they have maintain the proper balance of busting just enough people and creating just enough chaos to make it look like we need them.
Which, yes, does sound cynical, but that does not make it out-and-out wrong. It is probably not quite right, but I suspect that it may be at least partway on toward reality.