I think the same can be said for deadly force and social order. It’s kinda the point of the thread.
The guy is let off with a warning. Irritated, he goes to the subway and writes on the wall, “Brezhnev is a senile moron”. He is immediately arrested, and charged with betraying a state secret.
Regards,
Shodan
But it kinda does, see.
Because citizens, black citizens in particular, seem to have very few ways to address or redress rampant police brutality and/or the entrenched racism of the American justice system (or the perception of same). Rather, the trend these days seems to be cops doubling down and tooling up further.
Voting evidently doesn’t solve the issue - Baltimore is solidly democratic and has been for a while, has a black mayor and a black chief of police. Which is just about as “far left” as one can go in modern America. And yet the cops there still give folks brutal “rough rides” (among other things), apparently somewhat routinely and (up to this point) without much in the way of repercussions.
At this point, what are said folks supposed to be doing ? Go “aw, shucks, well, we tried” and [del]get on[/del]limp on with their day and do anything *but *try and rock the boat ?
Even if that were true, it wouldn’t justify counterviolence in a society where non-violent means of change are available. Look at Ferguson, where 90% of the residents don’t vote, and none of them stand for election or join the police force. They have chosen to detach themselves from society, they’ve not been forced out.
No-one is stopping anyone’s voice being heard, stopping them voting, stopping them becoming politicians or police. Yes, maybe it’s harder for them, and if so that needs to be changed, but when peaceful options are available rioting and revolution are unacceptable.
So if you think the Man is keeping you down, you are justified in burning down your local drugstore? I can’t tell who is the bigger buffoon - the rioters, or you.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s what we keep telling the cops, but they don’t get it.
Perhaps that’s a question for the black mayor and black chief of police, who one assumes aren’t anti-black racists… Just possibly, the answer is that, in fact, these organisations aren’t anti-black, and are treating people based on their actions.
Hypothetically speaking, what action justifies severing a man’s spine while handcuffed and in leg irons?
Let’s add, “a man who committed no crime”
I guess you’ve seen this - or something very much like it - but it’s doing the rounds on Twitter sokjust in case anyone missed it …
American police killed more people in March (111) than the entire UK police have killed since 1900
Nothing, if they were acting with the specific intention to break his spine, an allegation which is not supported by any evidence - but when your response to seeing some police near you is to immediately break and run away, and to fight and struggle tooth and nail when they deem that suspicious and decide to apprehend you, well, you’re pretty much taking complete responsibility for whatever happens to your person as a result of that choice.
The American army killed more Japanese citizens in one minute than the Brits did in the entire history of the world. A few days later, they did it again.
And that is exactly what a Police State is like folks. Not just the cops, but the people who support them, no matter what,
You’re assuming it was intentional, which is completely unwarranted based on what we actually know. What evidence we do have suggests it was negligent, not intentional, due to not buckling him in the van, so justification is irrelevant.
You also have no reason to think his race had anything to do with it. So, I’m not going to answer your hypothetical, as it has nothing (at the moment) to do with the discussion of racism we were having.
I didn’t say “without violence”, I said “without deliberate disorder”.
Oh, and btw the independence of India was **not **achieved without violence. It all began with the Sepoy mutiny, then the violent rebellion of 1857, remember ? While Ghandi might have wished to keep things peaceful, his civil disobedience movement still resulted in violence once the cops/army responded by shooting at them (e.g. Calcutta in 1930). And of course, beyond Ghandi’s movement there were plenty of other, violent revolutionary groups acting for India’s independence.
You keep saying this, but then there are lots of examples of black men shot by the police for reaching for ID, fleeing, having the bad luck to be arrested by a group containing a complete idiot, or killed/beaten for other reasons that do not warrant such a violent response.
I am unconvinced that the problems of 1965 don’t still exist to some lesser extent today.
And yet most young black men are not violent, and do not deserve any differing treatment by police. If a cop treats a non-violent young black man worse than he would some other individual, that’s a problem. It’s not only very unfair, it perpetuates the cycle. If black men are continually mistreated for being black men, many future black men will continue to (reasonably and rationally) see police as the enemy.
Most young black men do not commit crimes, and therefore it’s unfair and wrong to insist that non-violent young black men should “stop committing so many crimes”. Most of them don’t – by lumping them all together, you are making the problem worse.
Before you say the same about lumping cops together, it’s different for multiple reasons – the onus is on Police Departments; many (and possibly even most) of which have a cultural problem with protecting bad cops against accusations of mistreatment, and many (like Ferguson) have a problem with targeting black people for fines and minor crimes that do not serve public safety, but rather the finances of the locality; to repair the reasonable and rational impression of many black people that the police are their enemy.
100 years ago it was reasonable to trust black people if they said they were mistreated by cops, government, businesses, or society in general – why is it so unreasonable to trust black people (in general) now if they express that they were mistreated?
FWIW, some cops treat everybody badly. It’s just they seem to kill a lot more young black men, and old black men, and black people in general. But they also treat white people like shit.
Better a police state than anarchy. Better still what you actually have in America, a democracy where any event like this will be thoroughly investigated, despite the attempts of “protesters” to prevent that.
You’re in a democracy, with a legal system. Don’t fight the cops on the street even if they’re wrong. Fight them in court, and if you actually are in the right, enjoy your wealthy retirement.
It does make me wonder why organisation like the ACLU aren’t in Ferguson or Baltimore funding and representing all these people who’ve been “mistreated” by the cops, if it was as prevalent as claimed they’d be recouping their costs hundredfold.
Or, just maybe, they realise that in the vast majority of cases there was no actual police wrongdoing.
Long before “the vast number of cases are wrongdoing”, there will be a lot more than rioting in the streets.
I don’t see how anyone can be so sure that this is the case. It wasn’t for most of America’s history – why is it so certainly true now? For most of American history, police departments (and many/most American institutions) were the active violent enemy of black Americans – how can anyone be so certain that they are 100% fixed today?