# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 541
**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:** [July 3, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10802 "2017-07-03T16:39:55Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Let me throw that back at you: > > There is no necessary link between BLM and rioting, and yet you support an organization that you recognize has been involved with and incited riots. There is a link between that and rioting, and yet you’re okay with this enough to support them. > > Shame on you. I have not acknowledged this, because it’s not true. No need to rehash this discussion. > [@](#): > > Like it or not, guns have become a partisan issue. Mostly through the efforts of the left. Partisans spread lies about each other. To an outside observer, you would think that Trump was the worst president we have had in recent history and yet he has done almost nothing compared to Bush, who started a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. So perhaps you can tell me what “hateful lies” they have spread about Obama? They said that Obama was transforming America into something unrecognizable. They said he wanted to ban guns and compile a register on gun owners. That’s all bullshit, and based on their tone (especially premium nutbar LaPierre) I think it qualifies as hateful. > [@](#): > > Where do I say that the NRA ignores the rights of black people? I think you are reading way more into my posts than you should. > > The fact that they don’t raise a fuss about Philando Castile when I think they would have raised a fuss about some white CCW doesn’t mean they ignore the rights of minorities to the protections of the second amendment. Then why did they ignore the rights of Castile? > [@](#): > > So when I complain about the NRA’s double standard wrt whites vs blacks getting shot, you think that means I am OK with that disparity? I think that’s a weird way to interpret my statements. > > Or does the fact that I don’t immediately sever any and all association I have with the NRA mean that I fully endorse everything about them? When you continue to donate, and all you do is complain, yes – you are tolerating this disparity. If you actually didn’t tolerate this disparity you’d do something besides whining about it. > [@](#): > > You support BLM IIRC. They have incited and participated in riots that have ruined families and even resulted in deaths. And yet you’re OK with this. They haven’t done this. Further, the threat to black people from law enforcement is orders of magnitude greater than the threat to gun rights, which is barely existent (contrary to the NRA’s fear-mongering). ---
**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:** [July 3, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10803 "2017-07-03T17:25:57Z")
**Damuri Ajashi** , unlike a lot of folks on this board, and many/most conservatives in general, you’ve expressed strong agreement with me that institutional and societal racism are still quite significant in America, especially for black Americans. Perhaps you donate time and money to organizations dedicated to fighting these phenomena. But that you donate money to the NRA, which not only ignores the plight of black people in America, but actively opposes various civil rights progress in general (not only do they oppose BLM, which is one thing, but they insist that it’s law enforcement who are the real victims, and the real targets, and there is no issue of police brutality or mistreatment of black people) is highly troubling to me, and if you prioritize the tiny threat to gun rights as more important than the real threat to black people due to societal and institutional discrimination, then I find your attitude disgusting. Perhaps you donate money to organizations that fight against these forms of discrimination as well – if so, good on you. But these organizations are often directly opposed to the NRA on issues related to discrimination and law enforcement, and if you donate to both, then that’s just a little nuts, and only a step removed from donating to Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute and the SPLC at the same time. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10804 "2017-07-03T18:35:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I have not acknowledged this, because it’s not true. No need to rehash this discussion. Of course its true. Whether you acknowledge it or not is entirely your concern. They have absolutely been involved with riots. When the people who are marching in BLM marches later participate in rioting, they are involved in rioting. If you are trying to say that the participation of BLM members in riots that grew out of BLM protests is not really associated with BLM, you are doing the equivalent of trying to say that just because Ted Nugent is a member of the NRA board doesn’t mean any of his racism should rub off on the NRA. > [@](#): > > They said that Obama was transforming America into something unrecognizable. They said he wanted to ban guns and compile a register on gun owners. That’s all bullshit, and based on their tone (especially premium nutbar LaPierre) I think it qualifies as hateful. Wait, I don’t see the hateful words in what you just said. Are you sure you’re not just imagining it? > [@](#): > > Then why did they ignore the rights of Castile? Failing to step up on one incident does not mean they ignore the rights of black people. > [@](#): > > When you continue to donate, and all you do is complain, yes – you are tolerating this disparity. If you actually didn’t tolerate this disparity you’d do something besides whining about it. Well, I’ve never voted for Ted Nugent or Grover Norquist. Is quitting supposed to somehow make a difference, is quitting the NRA “doing something about it”? I will keep my membership and continue to donate every time I think the gun control side is trying to pass laws that even YOU think are stupid. Or should I stand aside while the gun control lobby gets stupid laws passed in congress? The NRA-ILA is a little different than the NRA generally, I don’t know if it makes a difference to you, probably not, but that is who gets my donations. > [@](#): > > They haven’t done this. Further, the threat to black people from law enforcement is orders of magnitude greater than the threat to gun rights, which is barely existent (contrary to the NRA’s fear-mongering). Of course they have. In fact BLM is more responsible for riots than the NRA is for cops shooting black men. The threat to gun rights only seems imaginary because the NRA has so deftly stopped most of the stupid, half assed gun control ideas that get thrown around by anti-gun folks who think its going to win an election for them. But the threat to gun rights were not imaginary in the wake of sandy hook, and the NRA (with the generous help of Dianne Feinstein) put and end to that threat. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2017, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10805 "2017-07-03T18:49:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **Damuri Ajashi** , unlike a lot of folks on this board, and many/most conservatives in general, you’ve expressed strong agreement with me that institutional and societal racism are still quite significant in America, especially for black Americans. Perhaps you donate time and money to organizations dedicated to fighting these phenomena. But that you donate money to the NRA, which not only ignores the plight of black people in America, but actively opposes various civil rights progress in general (not only do they oppose BLM, which is one thing, but they insist that it’s law enforcement who are the real victims, and the real targets, and there is no issue of police brutality or mistreatment of black people) is highly troubling to me, and if you prioritize the tiny threat to gun rights as more important than the real threat to black people due to societal and institutional discrimination, then I find your attitude disgusting. Perhaps you donate money to organizations that fight against these forms of discrimination as well – if so, good on you. But these organizations are often directly opposed to the NRA on issues related to discrimination and law enforcement, and if you donate to both, then that’s just a little nuts, and only a step removed from donating to Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute and the SPLC at the same time. Not even the SPLC thinks the NRA is a hate group, but it seems like you do? The failure to stand up for a black person effectively makes them a racist organization? Are you kidding? That would expand the definition of racist to pretty much every white person in America. In what way is supporting the NRA contributing to the brutality and mistreatment of black people? I happen to agree with the NRA that BLM is a violent organization that incites and participates in riots. Some people seem ready to excuse the violence and rioting because its not very common but its still there. Can I support my local police? Or do I have to turn my back on the cops too? Can I support my country and government or is their complicity in the institutional and societal racism against blacks a reason to turn my backs on them. Should I be renouncing my citizenship? Do I actually have to agree with everything an organization does to support them? because that leaves me with no organizations to support. Zero. BTW, ISTM that most of the board agrees that there is plenty of institutional and societal racism, particularly against black people. Don’t believe me? Start a thread saying that there isn’t significant institutional racism and you will get about a 10::1 ratio of people saying that there is to people saying that there isn’t. BBTW, I don’t donate time to the NRA. I donate money to the NRA-ILA. Its the lobbying arm of the NRA. Donations to the NRA-ILA are not deductible because they are being used for political advocacy. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10806 "2017-07-03T19:22:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Of course its true. Whether you acknowledge it or not is entirely your concern. They have absolutely been involved with riots. When the people who are marching in BLM marches later participate in rioting, they are involved in rioting. If you are trying to say that the participation of BLM members in riots that grew out of BLM protests is not really associated with BLM, you are doing the equivalent of trying to say that just because Ted Nugent is a member of the NRA board doesn’t mean any of his racism should rub off on the NRA. The leadership of BLM renounces all violence, and very few BLM have taken part in any violence. The NRA has not renounced hateful and fear-mongering rhetoric – it’s still a fundamental part of their message. I’m not going to continue about BLM with you; it’s as pointless as talking to **Smapti** about anything related to law enforcement. > [@](#): > > Wait, I don’t see the hateful words in what you just said. Are you sure you’re not just imagining it? Have you watched LaPierre speak about Obama? That screams hatred even with the volume turned off. If he believes what he says about Obama and the Democratic party in general, he’s a nut. If he doesn’t, he’s a con man ginning up fear to get money for his organization and help gun sales. > [@](#): > > Failing to step up on one incident does not mean they ignore the rights of black people. They’ve ignored almost all, if not all, cases of black people being unjustly brutalized or killed by police. > [@](#): > > Well, I’ve never voted for Ted Nugent or Grover Norquist. Is quitting supposed to somehow make a difference, is quitting the NRA “doing something about it”? I will keep my membership and continue to donate every time I think the gun control side is trying to pass laws that even YOU think are stupid. Or should I stand aside while the gun control lobby gets stupid laws passed in congress? The NRA-ILA is a little different than the NRA generally, I don’t know if it makes a difference to you, probably not, but that is who gets my donations. Lobby yourself, or contribute to other organizations that protect gun rights (there are many others, even if they’re smaller than the NRA). Talk to your local reps. There are tons of ways to fight nonsense gun restrictions aside from contributing to an organization that spreads unwarranted fear and hateful rhetoric and incidentally occasionally actually protects something worthwhile. Do you really think the NRA is exempt from the cause-devolving-into-a-racket phenomenon? > [@](#): > > The threat to gun rights only seems imaginary because the NRA has so deftly stopped most of the stupid, half assed gun control ideas that get thrown around by anti-gun folks who think its going to win an election for them. But the threat to gun rights were not imaginary in the wake of sandy hook, and the NRA (with the generous help of Dianne Feinstein) put and end to that threat. Whatever actual occasional (but still pretty damn minor – even Feinstein’s preferred restrictions, while partly silly, would barely affect the ability to own guns of all different legitimate capabilities, whether hunting, target-shooting, or defense) actual threats the NRA defeats are overwhelmed by the nonsense threats they spread fear about. Some restrictions are reasonable (background checks, possibly magazine size, etc.), and the NRA lumps all those in with the nonsense. You’re helping them do that, as well as implicitly supporting their purposeful ignoring of black victims of law enforcement misconduct. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Not even the SPLC thinks the NRA is a hate group, but it seems like you do? The failure to stand up for a black person effectively makes them a racist organization? Are you kidding? That would expand the definition of racist to pretty much every white person in America. I wouldn’t call them a hate group, but they’ve directly opposed many reasonable concerns about law enforcement and guns in a way that suggests they have no interest in the rights of black people. > [@](#): > > In what way is supporting the NRA contributing to the brutality and mistreatment of black people? I happen to agree with the NRA that BLM is a violent organization that incites and participates in riots. Some people seem ready to excuse the violence and rioting because its not very common but its still there. That’s one flaw of yours – equating the tiny amount of violence associated with some BLM-related events with all of BLM. But we’ve already gone through this – you’re just irrationally prejudiced against them due to some personal experience you’ve had with riots or something. You’re like **Smapti** in this regard, IMO, and there’s no point in arguing with you on this. > [@](#): > > Can I support my local police? Or do I have to turn my back on the cops too? Depends on what this means. If this means refrain from criticism or scrutiny, then that’s wrong. If you donate to them after they say or do bad things, then shame on you. > [@](#): > > Can I support my country and government or is their complicity in the institutional and societal racism against blacks a reason to turn my backs on them. Should I be renouncing my citizenship? Depends on what this means. If this means refrain from criticism or scrutiny, then that’s wrong. > [@](#): > > Do I actually have to agree with everything an organization does to support them? because that leaves me with no organizations to support. Zero. No, but you should agree with their prime focus and most of what they say or do, and if you agree with most of what the NRA says and does, then you’re either a nut or profoundly ignorant of the world, IMO. > [@](#): > > BTW, ISTM that most of the board agrees that there is plenty of institutional and societal racism, particularly against black people. Don’t believe me? Start a thread saying that there isn’t significant institutional racism and you will get about a 10::1 ratio of people saying that there is to people saying that there isn’t. This doesn’t actually dispute anything I’ve said. Read it carefully again if you’re confused. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10807 "2017-07-03T19:33:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, that’s not right. A LOT of NRA members of all races are outraged. > > [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/09/the-nras-internal-revolt-over-philando-castile/?utm\_term=.2df4871f90de](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/09/the-nras-internal-revolt-over-philando-castile/?utm_term=.2df4871f90de) Just because you capitalize a LOT doesn’t make it a lot. Your own link shows two (2) photographs of white men condemning the NRA for not condemning the shooting. Sure, the total is more than that, especially if you include “condemnations” like the NRA’s “We support the right of all Americans to carry guns.” :smack: What do you expect them to say if they’re racist? “Yeah; Lynch them uppity nigras!” ? Your link also has a video showing the cop keeping his gun aimed at a dying man instead of calling 911. (Agreed, that’s cop S.O.P. and a white corpse might have been treated the same way.) Anyone who follows stories like this and the contrasting reactions to blacks and whites and still babbles about “libertarian midwesterners” not being racist is too ignorant to be educated. ---
**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:** [July 4, 2017, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10808 "2017-07-04T02:38:18Z")
Martin Luther King Jr. on the inevitably of riots when brutality is tolerated in society: “Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” Violence is wrong. And violence is inevitable when mistreatment and brutality are tolerated in society. I’ll continue to condemn rioting and similar forms of violence, while recognizing (like MLK Jr.) that voiceless people who are habitually mistreated will sometimes lash out, simply because they are human. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2017, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10809 "2017-07-04T15:53:02Z")
This is an old story, but just showed up in my Newsfeed: [Pregnant woman and her husband held at gunpoint.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNKeWrxv9d4) Their only “crime” was speeding to the hospital — the woman’s water had broken and she was in severe pain. They tried to explain … and the cop did understand: he taunted the lady “Your kid’s going to be born in County jail! Ha ha.” I wasn’t sure I’d find the story on YouTube. But, in fact, searching for “pregnant woman in labor stopped by cops and held at gunpoint” gets hits on at least FIVE (5) separate incidents. The pregnant ladies were white in all five incidents, thus proving cops aren’t racist after all. 🙂 … (Or perhaps the pregnant black women held at gunpoint didn’t live to tell their tales.) _These things don’t happen in other countries._ The animosity American cops have against ordinary citizens is certainly part of America’s Great Exceptionalism. ---
**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:** [July 5, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10810 "2017-07-05T17:17:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The leadership of BLM renounces all violence, and very few BLM have taken part in any violence. And yet their events culminate i riots and looting. I guess its just a coincidence like guns being popular in the south. > [@](#): > > The NRA has not renounced hateful and fear-mongering rhetoric – it’s still a fundamental part of their message. I’m not going to continue about BLM with you; it’s as pointless as talking to **Smapti** about anything related to law enforcement. I feel exactly the same way. i feel like your reluctance to see the flaws within BLM is similar to Smapti’s reluctance to see the flaws in our police. > [@](#): > > Have you watched LaPierre speak about Obama? That screams hatred even with the volume turned off. If he believes what he says about Obama and the Democratic party in general, he’s a nut. If he doesn’t, he’s a con man ginning up fear to get money for his organization and help gun sales. So now its not the words that are hateful, its the tone with which they are delivered? Have you seen the way LaPierre talks about Hillary or Bill Clinton? or Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? These are all white people and he froths at the mouth when he talks about them too. Does he have extra froth when talking about Obama? > [@](#): > > They’ve ignored almost all, if not all, cases of black people being unjustly brutalized or killed by police. So has NARAL. Why does the NRA have to react to all police misconduct? > [@](#): > > Lobby yourself, or contribute to other organizations that protect gun rights (there are many others, even if they’re smaller than the NRA). Talk to your local reps. There are tons of ways to fight nonsense gun restrictions aside from contributing to an organization that spreads unwarranted fear and hateful rhetoric and incidentally occasionally actually protects something worthwhile. None of that is as effective as the NRA. So tell me again, what harms does the NRA do in the racial justice sense? I’m mostly pissed that they are not doing good when they have a clear opportunity to do so. Is that inaction a form of harm? > [@](#): > > Do you really think the NRA is exempt from the cause-devolving-into-a-racket phenomenon? No, I suppose only liberal causes are immune from that phenomenon. > [@](#): > > Whatever actual occasional (but still pretty damn minor – even Feinstein’s preferred restrictions, while partly silly, would barely affect the ability to own guns of all different legitimate capabilities, whether hunting, target-shooting, or defense) actual threats the NRA defeats are overwhelmed by the nonsense threats they spread fear about. Some restrictions are reasonable (background checks, possibly magazine size, etc.), and the NRA lumps all those in with the nonsense. You’re helping them do that, as well as implicitly supporting their purposeful ignoring of black victims of law enforcement misconduct. Its easy to make the argument when you minimize the other side’s concerns and amplify your own. I mean its easy when you say the other guy’s concerns are silly and yours are reasonable > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t call them a hate group, but they’ve directly opposed many reasonable concerns about law enforcement and guns in a way that suggests they have no interest in the rights of black people. Really? Other than Philando Castile, what have they done or said? It is in fact possible to take the police side of many of these incidents without being racist. The fact of the matter is that most of the police shootings are justified and reasonable at the time of the shooting. > [@](#): > > That’s one flaw of yours – equating the tiny amount of violence associated with some BLM-related events with all of BLM. But we’ve already gone through this – you’re just irrationally prejudiced against them due to some personal experience you’ve had with riots or something. You’re like **Smapti** in this regard, IMO, and there’s no point in arguing with you on this. Yeah I admit it, I am not as tolerant and forgiving of rioting and looting as some. Like a lot of things. Theoretical and philosophical support or opposition to things wilt in the face of actual experience. Like how Cheney shifted on gay rights after he found out his daughter was gay. > [@](#): > > Depends on what this means. If this means refrain from criticism or scrutiny, then that’s wrong. If you donate to them after they say or do bad things, then shame on you. I am pretty generous with my criticism of the NRA (not as generous as you are but still, I criticize them plenty). I didn’t donate to them in the wake of their lack of action after the Philando Castile shooting, I donated to them in the wake of gun control advocates trying to pass assault weapons bans etc. I suspect I will donate again any time someone tries to pass stupid ineffective laws that serve no purpose other than to limit constitutional rights. > [@](#): > > Depends on what this means. If this means refrain from criticism or scrutiny, then that’s wrong. This entire subthread started with my criticism of the NRA’s lack of response to the Philando Castile shooting. How is that refraining from criticism or scrutiny? > [@](#): > > No, but you should agree with their prime focus and most of what they say or do, and if you agree with most of what the NRA says and does, then you’re either a nut or profoundly ignorant of the world, IMO. Well I do in fact agree with their primary mission of protecting second amendment rights. MOST of what they say and do is in furtherance of that mission. I’m not sure why you think that is crazy or ignorant. Do you think their primary mission is to have cops shoot black men? > [@](#): > > This doesn’t actually dispute anything I’ve said. Read it carefully again if you’re confused. I guess I was trying to say that I don’t think a lot of people on this board disagree with you there is significant racism in America, not the KKK kind necessarily but the institutional and societal kind. ---
**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:** [July 5, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10811 "2017-07-05T17:35:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Martin Luther King Jr. on the inevitably of riots when brutality is tolerated in society: > > “Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” > > Violence is wrong. And violence is inevitable when mistreatment and brutality are tolerated in society. I’ll continue to condemn rioting and similar forms of violence, while recognizing (like MLK Jr.) that voiceless people who are habitually mistreated will sometimes lash out, simply because they are human. Do you think the plight of African Americans has worsened over the last few decades? We had a black president for 8 of the last ten years. Black people did not have an effective right to vote in much of the country in MLK Jr’s time. There is simply no excuse for violence when you have the vote in a fucnctioning democracy. When you are living in a city with a black mayor, a majority black city council, blacks in charge of the police and a police force comprised of mostly minorities, then what “contingent, intolerable conditions” makes BLM feel that they have “no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention”? Show me that democracy is broken in Baltimore and maybe we can talk about justified rioting. Show me that the conditions even approach what they were in MLKs time and maybe I can agree that MLK if he were alive today would say the same thing about the BLM riots. But as things are, I don’t think MLK would equivocate about the rioting today the way he did for the rioting back then. I don’t think the riots during the civil rights era were tactically or strategically good ideas, but frankly they were much more understandable and perhaps even excusable when compared to the BLM riots we have seen recently (although to be fair, there hasn’t been much BLM violence after BLM realized that violence was counterproductive to their goals, almost as if they can in fact influence whether or not things spin out of control). ---
**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:** [July 5, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10812 "2017-07-05T17:48:10Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And yet their events culminate i riots and looting. I guess its just a coincidence like guns being popular in the south. > > I feel exactly the same way. i feel like your reluctance to see the flaws within BLM is similar to Smapti’s reluctance to see the flaws in our police. From now on any time your bullshit accusations against BLM come up I’m just going to refer you to [MLK Jr.'s words](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20322546&postcount=10798). He’s right and you’re wrong on this. > [@](#): > > So now its not the words that are hateful, its the tone with which they are delivered? Have you seen the way LaPierre talks about Hillary or Bill Clinton? or Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? These are all white people and he froths at the mouth when he talks about them too. Does he have extra froth when talking about Obama? It’s both. The lies about Obama (and probably others) and the tone. And I said it was hatred – I never said anything about racial hatred. > [@](#): > > So has NARAL. Why does the NRA have to react to all police misconduct? They have reacted to instances in which police overstepped against white gun owners. That they don’t do so for Castile, or other black victims, speaks volumes. > [@](#): > > None of that is as effective as the NRA. So tell me again, what harms does the NRA do in the racial justice sense? I’m mostly pissed that they are not doing good when they have a clear opportunity to do so. Is that inaction a form of harm? Yes, that inaction is a form of harm. Do you really believe inaction can’t count as harm? > [@](#): > > No, I suppose only liberal causes are immune from that phenomenon. I suppose this is meant as a snarky response to someone, but I’m not sure who. Every cause is susceptible to this phenomenon. The NRA is just one of the most obvious examples. > [@](#): > > Its easy to make the argument when you minimize the other side’s concerns and amplify your own. I mean its easy when you say the other guy’s concerns are silly and yours are reasonable > > Really? Other than Philando Castile, what have they done or said? It is in fact possible to take the police side of many of these incidents without being racist. The fact of the matter is that most of the police shootings are justified and reasonable at the time of the shooting. They’ve lied about Obama and Democrats in general; they’ve spread nonsense fear about virtually nonexistent phenomena like the knockout game; they’ve lumped in reasonable positions (background checks, discussions on magazine size, and more) and propositions in with the ignorant silliness like assault weapons bans; they encourage hatred and fear of liberals, Democrats, foreigners, and minorities (implicitly in many cases, but it’s still pretty damn clear); they’re as responsible as any group for the current levels of bitterness and rancor and polarization; and much more. > [@](#): > > Yeah I admit it, I am not as tolerant and forgiving of rioting and looting as some. Like a lot of things. Theoretical and philosophical support or opposition to things wilt in the face of actual experience. Like how Cheney shifted on gay rights after he found out his daughter was gay. I’ll refer you again to [MLK Jr.'s words](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20322546&postcount=10798). You’re wrong and he was right. That you have personal experience doesn’t discount your wrongness, nor your complete lack of charitable feelings towards victims of widespread mistreatment by law enforcement (about 50% of black Americans report that they have personally been mistreated by law enforcement). > [@](#): > > I am pretty generous with my criticism of the NRA (not as generous as you are but still, I criticize them plenty). I didn’t donate to them in the wake of their lack of action after the Philando Castile shooting, I donated to them in the wake of gun control advocates trying to pass assault weapons bans etc. I suspect I will donate again any time someone tries to pass stupid ineffective laws that serve no purpose other than to limit constitutional rights. What about when someone suggests an entirely reasonable background check policy and they react with batshit wingnuttery? Or when a store considers selling smart guns, which some consumers want to buy, and they threaten boycotts? Or when they spread more lies about Obama, Democrats, liberals, immigrants, or mostly made-up phenomena like the knockout game? How much bullshit and harm-by-inaction will you tolerate before you decide the NRA isn’t worth your support? > [@](#): > > Well I do in fact agree with their primary mission of protecting second amendment rights. MOST of what they say and do is in furtherance of that mission. I’m not sure why you think that is crazy or ignorant. Do you think their primary mission is to have cops shoot black men? I think this is their cover. Their primary mission is to get money for themselves (LaPierre and his cronies’ salaries), spread fear to justify their own existence, and gin up gun sales. That explanation fits the facts of their bullshit behavior much more than actual concern about gun rights. ---
**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:** [July 5, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10813 "2017-07-05T17:54:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do you think the plight of African Americans has worsened over the last few decades? We had a black president for 8 of the last ten years. > > Black people did not have an effective right to vote in much of the country in MLK Jr’s time. There is simply no excuse for violence when you have the vote in a fucnctioning democracy. When you are living in a city with a black mayor, a majority black city council, blacks in charge of the police and a police force comprised of mostly minorities, then what “contingent, intolerable conditions” makes BLM feel that they have “no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention”? > > Show me that democracy is broken in Baltimore and maybe we can talk about justified rioting. Show me that the conditions even approach what they were in MLKs time and maybe I can agree that MLK if he were alive today would say the same thing about the BLM riots. But as things are, I don’t think MLK would equivocate about the rioting today the way he did for the rioting back then. > > I don’t think the riots during the civil rights era were tactically or strategically good ideas, but frankly they were much more understandable and perhaps even excusable when compared to the BLM riots we have seen recently (although to be fair, there hasn’t been much BLM violence after BLM realized that violence was counterproductive to their goals, almost as if they can in fact influence whether or not things spin out of control). You’re still not getting it. There’s no such thing as “BLM riots” or “BLM violence”. BLM (all their official statements, and all their leaders) specifically rejects violence and rioting. Any violence and rioting that has occurred in or near BLM events (and I’ll note that this recent rioting and violence is utterly minuscule compared to the rioting and violence of the 50s and 60s) has been due to the actions of a very small number of people, and has been rejected and criticized by BLM. I’m saying, like MLK Jr. said, that brutalized people (recall that about 50% of black Americans report personally having been mistreated by police) might consider violence when the brutalization doesn’t stop. That has nothing to do with BLM. That’s just because these are human beings, and human beings sometimes respond to brutalization with violence and rioting. Democracy is broken, to some extent, as long as this large-scale mistreatment continues. This doesn’t justify violence or rioting. But when democracy is broken, even if not entirely, there’s going to be some violence and rioting. These are human beings we’re talking about. It has nothing to do with BLM or any other anti-police-violence or pro-civil-rights organization. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10814 "2017-07-06T15:28:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s both. The lies about Obama (and probably others) and the tone. And I said it was hatred – I never said anything about racial hatred. Oh, OK so you meant that the NRA hates Democrats (of any race) that push for gun control? You weren’t referring to hateful racist speech towards a black president in this subthread about race? You were just talking about speech that shows that the speaker hated something? Doesn’t that sort of “hatefulness” apply to half the posts in this forum? > [@](#): > > They have reacted to instances in which police overstepped against white gun owners. That they don’t do so for Castile, or other black victims, speaks volumes. Yeah, I know. I’m the one that brought it to your attention. Remember? I mean, did you think to contrast the NRA’s characterization of the shooting of the Bundy protester as “murder” with the Castile shooting as “troubling” before I brought it up? You can read as many volumes as you want to read into that disparity in reaction, I probably read it differently. > [@](#): > > Yes, that inaction is a form of harm. Do you really believe inaction can’t count as harm? Of course inaction can be harm, particularly where the actor has some sort of duty to act. So what is the harm in this case from the NRA’s failure to characterize the Castile shooting as murder the way they did with the Bundy protester? What is the evil of their inaction that I have to be willing to sacrifice the only effective advocate for the second amendment in the bill of rights? If I can show you racial disparity in how the ACLU reacts to issues based on the race of the victim, would you throw them under the bus? Probably not. > [@](#): > > I suppose this is meant as a snarky response to someone, but I’m not sure who. Every cause is susceptible to this phenomenon. The NRA is just one of the most obvious examples. So if the NRA is no different than any other organization like say Planned parenthood or NOW, do you similarly condemn these organizations or only the one associated with gun rights? > [@](#): > > They’ve lied about Obama and Democrats in general; they’ve spread nonsense fear about virtually nonexistent phenomena like the knockout game; Wait, the publicity of over the knockout game was spread by the NRA? I’m sure they mentioned it at some point but I bet that’s not how most people first learned about it. I probably heard about the knockout game almost a year before I saw it referred to by anyone associated with the NRA. > [@](#): > > they’ve lumped in reasonable positions (background checks, discussions on magazine size, and more) and propositions in with the ignorant silliness like assault weapons bans; Its their job to advocate for gun rights. Universal background checks (which I support) infringe on those rights (its a permissible infringement but an infringement nonetheless) and are seen as a first step towards greater restrictions on gun rights. If there was a credible guarantee that background checks would make all the gun control advocates shut up and sit down and stop trying to infringe on our rights even more, I bet the attitude would be different. > [@](#): > > they encourage hatred and fear of liberals, Democrats, Well, unfortunately, gun control has become a partisan issue. the parties have chosen sides on this issue much to the detriment of the Democrats. > [@](#): > > foreigners, and minorities (implicitly in many cases, but it’s still pretty damn clear); :dubious: I don’t think its as clear as you think. > [@](#): > > they’re as responsible as any group for the current levels of bitterness and rancor and polarization; and much more. There are a lot of groups in that category and those groups include pretty much every organization from women’s rights organization to abortion rights organization to gay rights organizations. > [@](#): > > your complete lack of charitable feelings towards victims of widespread mistreatment by law enforcement (about 50% of black Americans report that they have personally been mistreated by law enforcement). Do you have a cite for my complete lack of charitable feelings towards the victims of police abuse because if you look back at this thread I am at least moderately pro-police victim. I mean this whole fucking subthread is based on my outrage over the death of Philando Castile, a victim of a police shooting. I don’t have a lot of charitable feelings towards rioters and looters. I don’t make any excuses or accept any justification for rioting and looting in a functional democracy. But I recognize that a lot of cops have an innate fear of blacks that cause them to kill black men where they would not kill white men…and some of them are just plain racists. > [@](#): > > What about when someone suggests an entirely reasonable background check policy and they react with batshit wingnuttery? AFAICT they mostly respond with slippery slope arguments that don’t make any sense until you talk to gun control advocates. > [@](#): > > Or when a store considers selling smart guns, which some consumers want to buy, and they threaten boycotts? The sale of smart guns ANYWHERE in the country was going to trigger the imposition of a smart gun REQUIREMENT in all guns sold in some states. From the gun rights perspective, gun control advocates have poisoned the well on smart gun technology by passing laws that would prohibit the sale of guns without smart gun technology. AFAICT, most gun folks would be happy to use smart gun technology after the military and police adopt it. But until it reaches the level of reliability that satisfies the military and then police, why should they be forced to accept that lower level of reliability? > [@](#): > > Or when they spread more lies about Obama, Democrats, liberals, immigrants, or mostly made-up phenomena like the knockout game? So you think all the publicity over the knockout game originated with the NRA? And lets face it, political opponents lie about each other. Do you need me to cite lies told by the gun control side? > [@](#): > > How much bullshit and harm-by-inaction will you tolerate before you decide the NRA isn’t worth your support? As long as they provide the only effective defense of the second amendment, I will send them money whenever the second amendment is threatened. Unless I am willing to sacrifice the second amendment because the NRA isn’t vocal enough about racial issues, how could it be any other way. > [@](#): > > I think this is their cover. Their primary mission is to get money for themselves (LaPierre and his cronies’ salaries), spread fear to justify their own existence, and gin up gun sales. That explanation fits the facts of their bullshit behavior much more than actual concern about gun rights. Pro-lifers say something similar about “the abortion industry” NARAL and Planned parenthood. They’re mostly concerned with protecting abortions to maintain their source of revenue. Sounds silly right? If they were really just concerned about ginning up gun sales, then why object to smart guns? That’s a whole new category of guns that can be sold to us rubes. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10815 "2017-07-06T15:46:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’re still not getting it. There’s no such thing as “BLM riots” or “BLM violence”. BLM (all their official statements, and all their leaders) specifically rejects violence and rioting. Any violence and rioting that has occurred in or near BLM events (and I’ll note that this recent rioting and violence is utterly minuscule compared to the rioting and violence of the 50s and 60s) has been due to the actions of a very small number of people, and has been rejected and criticized by BLM. So if I can quote you NRA leaders rejecting racism and saying that racism is bad, we can we agree that the NRA isn’t racist? Of course not. I mean shit, the tea party leaders made all sorts of statements rejecting racism while they burned Obama in effigy hanging at the end of a rope or with a bone through his nose, etc. Why do we give the BLM leadership the benefit of the doubt when most of the riots seem to start at BLM events and not give the Tea party the benefit of the doubt when so much racism seems to occur at Tea party protests? Am I the only one that has seen videos of BLM marches that feature pretty incendiary language, calls to burn the bitch down, threats of the city burning because the prosecutor didn’t indict, etc? > [@](#): > > I’m saying, like MLK Jr. said, that brutalized people (recall that about 50% of black Americans report personally having been mistreated by police) might consider violence when the brutalization doesn’t stop. That has nothing to do with BLM. That’s just because these are human beings, and human beings sometimes respond to brutalization with violence and rioting. And it should be condemned and the organization that provides an venue for that violence should be condemned. I’m not saying they can’t be rehabilitated. BLM seems to be doing a much better job of preventing riots at BLM events. I don’t think we’ve seen one for a while now, its almost as if BLM actually CAN control whether or not there is violence at their events by doing things like moderating their language and being pickier about who they put in front of people at these marches. > [@](#): > > Democracy is broken, to some extent, as long as this large-scale mistreatment continues. This doesn’t justify violence or rioting. But when democracy is broken, even if not entirely, there’s going to be some violence and rioting. These are human beings we’re talking about. It has nothing to do with BLM or any other anti-police-violence or pro-civil-rights organization. So, I’ll refer back to the Baltimore riots. Black mayor, Black police chief, mostly minority police force, mostly Black city council. What part of that democracy was broken that deprived the blacks of Baltimore any other avenue to express themselves and push for change? Can you explain why there is so little violence now that it is clear that violence hurts BLM? If BLM had no control over the totally unrelated folks who only showed up at the very end of BLM events to start riots, how are they keeping those rioters away from BLM events in recent days despite there being no lack of reason for outrage. Or was BLM using violence and the threat of violence to get more of what they wanted? In a functional democracy, there is no excuse for violence no matter how worthy the cause. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10816 "2017-07-06T16:15:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Oh, OK so you meant that the NRA hates Democrats (of any race) that push for gun control? You weren’t referring to hateful racist speech towards a black president in this subthread about race? You were just talking about speech that shows that the speaker hated something? Doesn’t that sort of “hatefulness” apply to half the posts in this forum? Is this meant as a defense? Maybe it makes sense to you, considering the incredible hatred you’ve displayed for various other targets (chiefly Hillary Clinton, from my memory). It’s not okay, even when others do it. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I know. I’m the one that brought it to your attention. Remember? I mean, did you think to contrast the NRA’s characterization of the shooting of the Bundy protester as “murder” with the Castile shooting as “troubling” before I brought it up? You can read as many volumes as you want to read into that disparity in reaction, I probably read it differently. LOL that you “brought it to my attention”. I read it pretty clearly as the NRA continuing their disregard for the rights of black people. Back when some black people were openly carrying guns in the fight for civil rights, the NRA supported gun control and took credit for successful gun control legislation (like the Gun Control Act of 1968). Do you really think that’s a coincidence? If not, that you’re willing to support an organization that’s consistently opposed the rights of black people, just because they also defend a right you think is important, reflects poorly on you. > [@](#): > > Of course inaction can be harm, particularly where the actor has some sort of duty to act. > > So what is the harm in this case from the NRA’s failure to characterize the Castile shooting as murder the way they did with the Bundy protester? What is the evil of their inaction that I have to be willing to sacrifice the only effective advocate for the second amendment in the bill of rights? If the evil isn’t clear to you, then I probably can’t explain it. I’ll try, though – the threat to black people in America is hugely significant and greatly increased when black people make a choice to exercise their right to carry firearms. _There is literally no greater threat in the US to firearm carryers than the threat to black firearm carryers_. And the NRA does absolutely nothing about this. If that doesn’t infuriate you to the point that you’d no longer support the NRA, then that reflects very poorly on you. > [@](#): > > If I can show you racial disparity in how the ACLU reacts to issues based on the race of the victim, would you throw them under the bus? Probably not. It certainly might change my opinion on them. Open a thread about it and I’ll take part, if you have good evidence. > [@](#): > > So if the NRA is no different than any other organization like say Planned parenthood or NOW, do you similarly condemn these organizations or only the one associated with gun rights? No, the NRA is a lot worse. See the point above about the threat to black firearm carryers, which should be a primary focus of the NRA. There is nothing equivalent for NOW or Planned Parenthood. > [@](#): > > Wait, the publicity of over the knockout game was spread by the NRA? I’m sure they mentioned it at some point but I bet that’s not how most people first learned about it. I probably heard about the knockout game almost a year before I saw it referred to by anyone associated with the NRA. I don’t know if they started the lies, but that they continued them is indefensible. > [@](#): > > Its their job to advocate for gun rights. Universal background checks (which I support) infringe on those rights (its a permissible infringement but an infringement nonetheless) and are seen as a first step towards greater restrictions on gun rights. If there was a credible guarantee that background checks would make all the gun control advocates shut up and sit down and stop trying to infringe on our rights even more, I bet the attitude would be different. This is a weak defense. You can use similar logic to try to rationalize any bad policy advocacy, but it doesn’t fly. Bad policy shouldn’t be defended for any reason. > [@](#): > > Do you have a cite for my complete lack of charitable feelings towards the victims of police abuse because if you look back at this thread I am at least moderately pro-police victim. I mean this whole fucking subthread is based on my outrage over the death of Philando Castile, a victim of a police shooting. I don’t have a lot of charitable feelings towards rioters and looters. I don’t make any excuses or accept any justification for rioting and looting in a functional democracy. But I recognize that a lot of cops have an innate fear of blacks that cause them to kill black men where they would not kill white men…and some of them are just plain racists. That you prioritize the tiny threat to gun rights over the threat to black people (which the NRA inflames) shows your lack of charity. > [@](#): > > AFAICT they mostly respond with slippery slope arguments that don’t make any sense until you talk to gun control advocates. Weak defense of bad policy. Bad policy shouldn’t be defended. > [@](#): > > The sale of smart guns ANYWHERE in the country was going to trigger the imposition of a smart gun REQUIREMENT in all guns sold in some states. From the gun rights perspective, gun control advocates have poisoned the well on smart gun technology by passing laws that would prohibit the sale of guns without smart gun technology. AFAICT, most gun folks would be happy to use smart gun technology after the military and police adopt it. But until it reaches the level of reliability that satisfies the military and then police, why should they be forced to accept that lower level of reliability? That doesn’t sound constitutional – so challenge it. But don’t threaten boycotts against small businesses because they want to sell a good product to customers that want it. > [@](#): > > So you think all the publicity over the knockout game originated with the NRA? > And lets face it, political opponents lie about each other. Do you need me to cite lies told by the gun control side? Spreading lies is indefensible. I’m well aware of the flaws of many gun control advocates. > [@](#): > > As long as they provide the only effective defense of the second amendment, I will send them money whenever the second amendment is threatened. Unless I am willing to sacrifice the second amendment because the NRA isn’t vocal enough about racial issues, how could it be any other way. They’re only effective in defending the right for white people (or non-black people in general). They are fine with threats to the right for black people. That you tolerate this reflects very poorly on you. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10817 "2017-07-06T16:27:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So if I can quote you NRA leaders rejecting racism and saying that racism is bad, we can we agree that the NRA isn’t racist? Of course not. I mean shit, the tea party leaders made all sorts of statements rejecting racism while they burned Obama in effigy hanging at the end of a rope or with a bone through his nose, etc. Why do we give the BLM leadership the benefit of the doubt when most of the riots seem to start at BLM events and not give the Tea party the benefit of the doubt when so much racism seems to occur at Tea party protests? So here you’re admitting the NRA is racist, and yet you wonder why I suspect you lack charity and concern for threats to black people? Here’s a hint – _it’s because you support an organization that has consistently said/done racist things_. > [@](#): > > Am I the only one that has seen videos of BLM marches that feature pretty incendiary language, calls to burn the bitch down, threats of the city burning because the prosecutor didn’t indict, etc? That’s bad and should be condemned, as some of the violence associated with the CR movement in the 50s and 60s should be condemned. And yet such violence is sometimes inevitable, wrong as it is, when people are consistently and repeatedly subject to brutalization and dehumanization. > [@](#): > > And it should be condemned and the organization that provides an venue for that violence should be condemned. I’m not saying they can’t be rehabilitated. BLM seems to be doing a much better job of preventing riots at BLM events. I don’t think we’ve seen one for a while now, its almost as if BLM actually CAN control whether or not there is violence at their events by doing things like moderating their language and being pickier about who they put in front of people at these marches. So are you a BLM supporter now, considering all the good they’ve done? Or are you going to condemn them still, even though you didn’t condemn the CR leaders and organizations of the 60s despite that there was occasional violence at those events (and sometimes that violence and rioting greatly exceeded anything that’s happened at a BLM event)? > [@](#): > > So, I’ll refer back to the Baltimore riots. Black mayor, Black police chief, mostly minority police force, mostly Black city council. What part of that democracy was broken that deprived the blacks of Baltimore any other avenue to express themselves and push for change? Politics is more than local, and the race of the politicians isn’t always relevant. I don’t know if those officials were all doing what they could have been doing to fight for justice, but even if they were, conditions could still be bad enough statewide and nationwide for a level of brutalization and dehumanization sufficient that reactive violence in the form of rioting and disturbances becomes inevitable, wrong as it remains. What other explanation is there? Are Baltimore black people just bad people, worse than other cities, on average? I’m sure there are bad eggs among them, as there are in any group, but mass rioting like that never happens in a vacuum, and historically among aggrieved populations is almost always in response to brutality and other forms of mistreatment. That doesn’t justify it, but it does explain it. Humans are not robots, and if people are pushed hard and far enough, some of them will push back, sometimes not in perfectly appropriate ways. > [@](#): > > Can you explain why there is so little violence now that it is clear that violence hurts BLM? If BLM had no control over the totally unrelated folks who only showed up at the very end of BLM events to start riots, how are they keeping those rioters away from BLM events in recent days despite there being no lack of reason for outrage. Or was BLM using violence and the threat of violence to get more of what they wanted? In a functional democracy, there is no excuse for violence no matter how worthy the cause. I think BLM has almost nothing to do with any such rioting or similar violence – I think it would have happened with or without BLM. If it hadn’t happened during a BLM event than the pressure would still have been released elsewhere. BLM had nothing to do with it. MLK Jr. is right, and you are wrong on this. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10818 "2017-07-06T20:34:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Is this meant as a defense? Maybe it makes sense to you, considering the incredible hatred you’ve displayed for various other targets (chiefly Hillary Clinton, from my memory). It’s not okay, even when others do it. No I was being skeptical that you didn’t have some racial component in mind when you said they used “hateful language” towards Obama. I generally don’t like Hillary. I am very mad at Hillary. I want her to shut up and go away. I don’t hate her. > [@](#): > > LOL that you “brought it to my attention”. I thought I brought the discrepancy between how the NRA treated Castile’s death and the Bundy protester death to your attention. I wasn’t talking about some link between the NRA and racism. > [@](#): > > I read it pretty clearly as the NRA continuing their disregard for the rights of black people. Back when some black people were openly carrying guns in the fight for civil rights, the NRA supported gun control and took credit for successful gun control legislation (like the Gun Control Act of 1968). I don’t know if you always thought that assault weapons bans were stupid but in case you are one of those people who had their minds changed about assault weapons bans after finding out more, I will try to share the history as I understand it. I think you might be a victim of gun control advocates trying to get your allegiance by trying to paint gun rights and their advocates as historical racists. The NRA supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) in the wake of the assassination of JFK, RFK and MLK (all by white dudes, btw). LBJ had been trying to pass licensing and registration for years but he had been getting stymied by the NRA. Then in the wake of the assassination of JFK, RFK and MLK, the made another push but he was stymied again, this time by the gun control crowd that wanted to ban handguns as well. In the end, LBJ was able to pass the GCA with the acquiescence of the NRA. Its hard to find the racism behind the NRA’s support for the GCA unless you are determined to find it. > **[Opinion | Gun control lessons from Lyndon Johnson](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gun-control-lessons-from-lyndon-johnson/2012/12/16/38f3941e-47b4-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html?utm_term=.0e5cb1c24bd4)** > > If Obama wants to act, time is short. That’s not to say the NRA was particularly active in pushing for civil rights but they were not cynically passing gun control laws to restrict black access to guns. They just didn’t have a huge problem with blacks exercising their second amendment rights. Then in 1977, there was a revolt within the NRA. At the annual meeting in Cinncinnati, there was enough discontent over the NRA’s role in passing the GCA (the one you have been told was passed to take guns away from black people) that they were able to replace the entire board with Wayne LaPierre’s group. The NRA then changed its charter so that no one could do to them what they did to the prior leaders of the NRA and staggered the vote so no more than 1/3 of the board could be replaced at any time. If the current NRA is racist and then why were they so upset about passing the GCA to deny gun rights to blacks? I would suggest that the NRA’s support for the GCA is more closely tied to their less radical ideology at the time combined with the recent assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK (perhaps not MLK if you are convinced they were racists). > [@](#): > > Do you really think that’s a coincidence? If not, that you’re willing to support an organization that’s consistently opposed the rights of black people, just because they also defend a right you think is important, reflects poorly on you. I don’t think the NRA has ever opposed the rights of black people. Do you have anything more than the speculations of the gun control crowd to cite to? I mean there were plenty of opportunities for the NRA to oppose the rights of black people during the civil rights movement and they did the opposite. The most notable example was in Monroe NC. The KKK was doing its thing when a bunch of black guys started an NRA chapter and the NRA facilitated their acquisition of guns and firearms training because no one local would sell guns to a bunch of black guys. Granted they didn’t put their bodies in between the black families and the KKK but they did support gun rights of black communities that intended to use them against racists. The NRA supported “sensible gun control” back then before the Cinncinnatti revolt, the NRA wasn’t the same organization it is today. In fact the main reason today’s NRA is the way it is today is because because of a revolt > **[Independent Lens | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/)** > > America's home for independent documentary film > [@](#): > > If the evil isn’t clear to you, then I probably can’t explain it. I’ll try, though – the threat to black people in America is hugely significant and greatly increased when black people make a choice to exercise their right to carry firearms. _There is literally no greater threat in the US to firearm carryers than the threat to black firearm carryers_. And the NRA does absolutely nothing about this. > > If that doesn’t infuriate you to the point that you’d no longer support the NRA, then that reflects very poorly on you. In light of what I just shared with you, do you still think that the NRA is evil? The NRA has about as much black representation on its board as the Senate and the boards of fortune 500 companies. Why hasn’t the senate spoken out about Philando Castile? Why haven’t fortune 500 companies? Is the evil clear there as well or is there a special obligation for the NRA as an organization to speak out? Individual members of the senate have spoken out but so have prominent members of the NRA. > [@](#): > > It certainly might change my opinion on them. Open a thread about it and I’ll take part, if you have good evidence. I’m basically talking about the ACLU’s silence in the face of apparent discrimination against Asians in the college admissions process. The apparent discrimination is significant enough that the ACLU would probably have something to say if it was blacks, Hispanics or other minorities. > [@](#): > > No, the NRA is a lot worse. See the point above about the threat to black firearm carryers, which should be a primary focus of the NRA. There is nothing equivalent for NOW or Planned Parenthood. Maybe I missed it but other than Philando Castile have there been other black CCWs that were unjustly killed? Or are you saying that this one examples shows that all the CCWs I know are in grave danger? How vocally did NOW (and other feminists) come down on Bill Clinton when he was accused of sexual misconduct? Certainly they wouldn’t have stood by while the rich and powerful either called these women liars or sluts, right? > [@](#): > > I don’t know if they started the lies, but that they continued them is indefensible. Wait, so the knockout game wasn’t real? > **[Knockout game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game)** > > "Knockout game" is one of the names given in the United States for assaults in which a person (with others acting as accomplices or lookouts) attempts to make an unsuspecting victim lose consciousness with a single sucker punch. The assaults have similarities to the happy slapping trend seen in Europe, in which camera phones are used to record assaults. Other names given to assaults of this type include "knockout", "knockout king", "point 'em out, knock 'em out", and "polar-bearing" or "polar-bea... Then why do black leaders seem to acknowledge its existence? > [@](#): > > This is a weak defense. You can use similar logic to try to rationalize any bad policy advocacy, but it doesn’t fly. Bad policy shouldn’t be defended for any reason. I don’t think the NRA thinks its bad policy. Just because I disagree with them doesn’t make me right. > [@](#): > > That you prioritize the tiny threat to gun rights over the threat to black people (which the NRA inflames) shows your lack of charity. Tiny threat to gun rights? They were going to ban guns based on cosmet6ic features. And how does the NRA “inflame” the threat to black people. What exactly are they doing to “inflame” that threat? You are equating non-feasance with malfeasance. > [@](#): > > Weak defense of bad policy. Bad policy shouldn’t be defended. It depends on what the alternative is. I didn’t vote for Hillary because I thought she was great. I voted for her because Trump was the alternative. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t sound constitutional – so challenge it. But don’t threaten boycotts against small businesses because they want to sell a good product to customers that want it. Why not? You’re saying we should just go ahead and take our chances in court when we can avoid the situation altogether by withholding our patronage? > [@](#): > > Spreading lies is indefensible. I’m well aware of the flaws of many gun control advocates. So supporting the NRA is fighting those lies, amirite? > [@](#): > > They’re only effective in defending the right for white people (or non-black people in general). They are fine with threats to the right for black people. > > That you tolerate this reflects very poorly on you. I hope I have shown you that the NRA isn’t what the gun control crowd has told you. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2017, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10819 "2017-07-06T21:02:10Z")
The NRA supported the Mulford act in California in 1967, which was directly in response to black activists arming themselves. But I’m not just talking about the past. In the present, this very day, by far the most significant threat to gun owners and especially CCW holders is the threat that black gun owners face. No other threat comes close. Do you disagree with this? Because the NRA is doing nothing whatsoever about this very real threat to American gun owners. That you still support the NRA despite this utterly massive gap in their concern for gun rights reflects poorly on you. ---
**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:** [July 7, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10820 "2017-07-07T17:38:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So here you’re admitting the NRA is racist, and yet you wonder why I suspect you lack charity and concern for threats to black people? Here’s a hint – _it’s because you support an organization that has consistently said/done racist things_. Oh. I thought I was saying that we would not agree that the NRA wasn’t racist just because NRA leaders reject racism. I was further saying that rejections of racism didn’t seem to get much mileage when the Tea Party leaders were rejecting it. So why do we give the words of BLM leaders so much weight when they reject violence and yet almost every riot was linked to a BLM event or activists. > [@](#): > > That’s bad and should be condemned, as some of the violence associated with the CR movement in the 50s and 60s should be condemned. And yet such violence is sometimes inevitable, wrong as it is, when people are consistently and repeatedly subject to brutalization and dehumanization. Wait, are you saying that the blacks in the 1950s and 1960s were “consistently and repeatedly subject to brutalization and dehumanization” or that blacks today are “consistently and repeatedly subject to brutalization and dehumanization”? I think you paint a much bleaker picture of how blacks are treated today than the facts justify. Once again, the riots in Baltimore were against a government where the cops were largely minorities, the police chiefs were mostly black, the city council was mostly black and the mayor was black. What inhumane treatment was this almost entirely black government imposing on their black residents that made rioting inevitable? > [@](#): > > So are you a BLM supporter now, considering all the good they’ve done? Or are you going to condemn them still, even though you didn’t condemn the CR leaders and organizations of the 60s despite that there was occasional violence at those events (and sometimes that violence and rioting greatly exceeded anything that’s happened at a BLM event)? The conditions during the CR era are immensely different from the conditions today. Democracy is broken when Jim Crow laws prevent effective access to the ballot box and there are racist laws being enforced across the country. The existence of racist cops (or cops that have an unreasonable fear of black men) is not evidence of a broken democracy. I support BLM more now than I have in the past. I never thought they were an absolute negative. I acknowledged that they probably accelerated the adoption of body cams by police across the country. But their use of violence as a method of getting what they wanted (whether it was leverage against governments or to get attention) made them unsupportable. Let me know when the NRA starts riots. I’ll drop that membership in a second but you are saying I should surrender membership and ability to vote for change in an organization for not speaking out about Philando Castile when you wouldn’t even condemn an organization that is at the center of riots across the country. > [@](#): > > Politics is more than local, and the race of the politicians isn’t always relevant. I don’t know if those officials were all doing what they could have been doing to fight for justice, but even if they were, conditions could still be bad enough statewide and nationwide for a level of brutalization and dehumanization sufficient that reactive violence in the form of rioting and disturbances becomes inevitable, wrong as it remains. So is that what you are saying happened? There were riots in the city of Baltimore based on the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore Police (including black officers) led by black police chief in a city with a mostly black city council and a black mayor because there might be bad conditions elsewhere in the state that had the 4th highest rate of Democratic votes after Hawaii, DC and California? > [@](#): > > What other explanation is there? Are Baltimore black people just bad people, worse than other cities, on average? I’m sure there are bad eggs among them, as there are in any group, but mass rioting like that never happens in a vacuum, and historically among aggrieved populations is almost always in response to brutality and other forms of mistreatment. That doesn’t justify it, but it does explain it. Humans are not robots, and if people are pushed hard and far enough, some of them will push back, sometimes not in perfectly appropriate ways. I don’t know. Maybe they were pissed off about what was happening elsewhere in the country and expressed that outrage by burning down parts of their city. Maybe BLM incited them to riot with violent rhetoric. Maybe people were making excuses for the rioting and they felt that their rioting was somehow justified because people were being so understanding about the violent rioting. > [@](#): > > I think BLM has almost nothing to do with any such rioting or similar violence – I think it would have happened with or without BLM. If it hadn’t happened during a BLM event than the pressure would still have been released elsewhere. BLM had nothing to do with it. I think BLM created much of that pressure with their violent rhetoric. Their events were frequently the precipitating factor. You seem to be saying that the riots were inevitable because people were pissed > [@](#): > > MLK Jr. is right, and you are wrong on this. You are misquoting and taking MLK Jr. out of context. Do you really think MLK would excuse the BLM riots in a country with a black president, the civil rights act the voting rights act, 3 black senators, and 50 black congressmen? You should be ashamed of yourself for twisting MLK’s words to fit your agenda. ---
**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:** [July 7, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/10821 "2017-07-07T17:54:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The NRA supported the Mulford act in California in 1967, which was directly in response to black activists arming themselves. Sure, they helped draft a law that would hinder the Black Panthers without really imposing a burden on other gun owners. Just as they helped black veterans in the South arm themselves and train their black neighbors to use firearms. The NRA simply isn’t as racist as you want to believe but its more racist than I thought. > [@](#): > > But I’m not just talking about the past. In the present, this very day, by far the most significant threat to gun owners and especially CCW holders is the threat that black gun owners face. No other threat comes close. > > Do you disagree with this? Because the NRA is doing nothing whatsoever about this very real threat to American gun owners. So I’ll ask again, other than Philando Castile, can you point to other CCW black men that were seemingly unjustly killed by a cop? I can point to white CCW holders that were unjustly killed by cops without much comment by the NRA (e.g. Erik Scott, west point grad veteran). You sure you aren’t believing stuff being sold to you by the same folks that brought you assault weapons bans? > [@](#): > > That you still support the NRA despite this utterly massive gap in their concern for gun rights reflects poorly on you. Why do you keep believing the gun control outlets that tried to convince you that assault weapons bans were a good idea? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=540) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=542)