So, whaddaya think, Duke? Black folks are just making it all up? Your contempt is on display, your reasoning remains obscured.
No, I think they have a reasonable beef. Their method of rectifying it, maybe not so reasonable.
You mean the peaceful protesting (since most of the protesting is, in fact, peaceful)? Or the very small portion of protesters who engage in violent behavior?
Peaceful protesting is great, an American tradition. I have absolutely nothing against peaceful protesting. Riots, not a fan of.
Then the question becomes a matter of risking the riot, or remaining silent. What is more important, order or justice?
So you’re saying blacks are not capable of protesting without rioting? I would have thought different.
Are “blacks” a single entity?
No group is capable of protesting without the risk of a riot, since a big gathering of angry people increases the likelihood of a riot as compared to that same street with no protesters on it. His point is that protesting comes with an inherent risk always. Protesting is not perfectly safe and has never been perfectly safe.
It does seem as though peaceful protests sometimes evolve into riots when the riot police come out. But that has been the case for pretty much every protesting group, ever, race has nothing to do with it.
It that sort of cheap bullshit is not beneath you, it oughta be. Work on that, won’t you?
I believe that SA’s “slandering” is merely to point out that Scott may not have been the book-reading angel that the family purported him to be. Given his history, the possibility that he did something that the officers reasonably perceived as a serious threat cannot be ruled out. Video isn’t the answer to everything and just because you don’t see it on tape doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The thing is, a suspect’s history has nothing to do with an officer’s decision to shoot unless the officer was aware of that history prior to the incident. It’s only what the officer knows at the time that counts. Not what later turns out to be the case.
Up thread Chimera notes that he/she is diabetic and asks if the police would have the right to murder him because he is acting disoriented. Aside from the hyperbolic language (no one has the right to murder anyone, under any circumstances. Murder has a specific, legal meaning) the answer is “maybe”, depending on the circumstances as the officers reasonably believe them to be. Merely disoriented? Of course, not. Disoriented and behaving in a manner that that leads the officers to believe that you present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? Then, yes.
Ironically enough, the law of the land (Graham v Connor) involved a diabetic acting in a manner that caused a store owner to call the police. When they encountered him he was non-compliant and became combative. In this case he wasn’t shot but sustained injuries in the course of being arrested. It turns out he was having a diabetic reaction and sued. But the court said (paraphrasing) “The cops couldn’t have known that. They acted reasonably, based on what they had” and made that the standard moving forward. Not only that, the court recognized that your average Joe (most of the people posting in this thread) doesn’t really know what goes on in these types of encounters and “The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 396-397.” And “The calculus of reasonableness must embody [490 U.S. 386, 397] allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The court also said no Monday morning quarterbacking.
Regarding non-compliance under penalty of death – officers are trained that the number one indicator that they maybe assaulted is non-compliance on the part of a suspect. As soon as a suspect is non-compliant with an officer’s lawful orders, the officer is going to have a heightened sense of fear and the suspect is subject to arrest. The officer is legally allowed to employ force to make the arrest. How much force depends on the suspect’s actions. With a few notable and outrageous exceptions, officers do not kill people for simply walking away or otherwise being non-compliant. That said, people who walk away while reaching into their waistband and pulling something out despite orders to stop or show their hands may end up being shot. You don’t need to be some sort of expert to draw and shoot before an officer can pull the trigger. You may THINK that an officer can react fast enough that he can wait until he’s sure it a gun before firing (or shoot him in the leg or shoot the gun out of his hand, etc.) but you’d be wrong. So, suspects aren’t being shot for mere non-compliance or being under the influence of PCP or jaywalking or all the other things cop haters like to throw out there. They are being shot for non-compliance to the point where they present a deadly threat to the officer. You may call it “blaming the victim”. I call it “taking responsibility for your own actions”. How much non-compliance is OK? IMHO, none. But people hate being told what to do, especially by people in authority. But those are the rules of our society and if you chose to break them there will probably be lawful consequences. Including ending up injured or dead.
“Cop haters”, huh. OK, got it, thanks for sharing.
In response to MikeF: The consequences for even the mildest form of noncompliance seem much more serious for black people, and the bar for what is considered not complying, and what is considered dangerous and threatening, seems much lower. That’s the problem, at least as protesters and BLM-supporters believe.
OK, nothing has happened in San Diego. It was presumptive of me to assume that since protests have devolved into riots in most other cities where a black man was killed by the police that it would also happen in San Diego.
And sure, protests can turn into riots now and then. There were no riots in Tulsa, so at least one city - where the shooting was one of the more blatant killings - has proven the exception.
The range was about 12’-15’. Maybe you’re shitty shot but that’s not my problem. Tell us again about your training and experience, please.
Good job, blacks!
In Tulsa the videos were released quickly, and the cop who shot the unarmed man was charged with manslaughter. That might have something to do with why there were no riots, as compared to Charlotte in which the videos were held back (and still not everything has been released) and no one was charged.
Are you denying that they are people out there (and here) that hate cops and cannot be reasoned with, no matter what? I believe that there are and I chose to call them “cop haters”.
Duke:
Clearly, you are making an effort to be more reasonable. Good, of course.
But you are kinda confusing. You say “… protests have devolved into riots in most other cities…” But in the next paragraph, its “…sure, protests can turn into riots now and then…”. Which, to my ear, sounds like it is the riots that are the exception, the extraordinary. Whereas the first quote posits riots to be the rule, rather than the exception.
Can you clarify?
Yeah, my entire argument is based on the presumption that there is no such thing as a “cop hater” any where at any time. You got me good there, hoss.