Which is awesome when you consider how cops will arrest somebody if there is too much salt on their food.
Here is another example of the egregious nature of police/citizen interaction that shows we need to rethink consequences for police brutality (so there is some).
In this case we had police looking for an armed suspect and they saw a man who they believed matched the description (black male I assume - they all look alike right SA?). A k-9 pulls up and orders the man out of the car, he complies. He then ordered the man 2 raise his hands and the man put one hand up and shifted the other hand “back and forth” making the cop feel fearful of threat to his life. Twenty seconds after giving the order, the police officer ordered his police dog to attack, taking the man down. About this same time more police showed up (now a total of six) and they ordered the man to lie still and put his hand behind his back while they continue to allow the dog to maul him. The guy is screaming in pain and is reaching toward the dog while one of the officers is praising the dog, one is kicking the guy in the ribs and ordering him to stop resisting, and the other 4 are just standing around (probably still in fear of their lives?) and watching. The guy finally is able to hold himself still enough (even though the dog continues to maul his legs) that the officer that kicked him is able to cuff him at which point they pull the dog him. The guy was innocent of any and all crimes, not weapon was found, but he was still cited for obstructing the legal process (it was later dismissed).
One of the cops on the scene commented:
The injured thug spent 14 days in the hospital.
The chief of police apologized, but not all officers thought the actions were wrong:
I find this interesting that the only way to take him was to let a dog chew on his leg and kick him in the ribs with enough force to break his ribs and collapse his lung even though there were 6 police officers on the scene. Really?
The police were just looking for a “black male with dreadlocks”; the 53 year old criminal did not have dreads, but was a black man, so there is that.
Here is an image of what the dog did to his leg.
These stories are horrifying. We need to send some of these cops to prison.
Some professions have reporting requirements that are taken very seriously. Unfortunately, policing is often grossly deficient in this respect.
When police officers routinely lose their careers and/or are criminally convicted for not reporting abusive conduct by their fellow officers, there will be a culture shift in policing, but until then, the the public will continue to suffer at the hands of miscreants wearing badges of authority.
Officers who do report need to be supported by the chain of command. Failing to appropriately act on reports by officers of other officers’ misconduct is a sure and certain way to keep the existing code of dishonour in place.
Some law enforcement agencies are moving forward with this. Good for them. As for the rest that do not, they deserve what they get when the general public turns against them.
Trusting law enforcement agencies to police themselves is not the way to go. Independent review of police, along with the reviewing body having sufficient authority to ensure that the police carry out it’s orders, is necessary. Some places already have this in place, but many do not.
The legal process was the dog biting his leg. I guess he is guilty of trying to obstruct that.
Think of how saddened and disappointed he’d be if it had been a white man. Would he be sad and disappointed if HE was treated that way. Ya know, a real person? I can tell you with certainty that these cops never looked upon the ‘suspect’ as a person.
I cannot help but be reminded of the quote in Jack Reacher and feel that it applies greatly to cops:
YES!!! I seriously argue that the race riots of the 1960s that occurred in the same time period as the Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and the freedom riders are NOT analogous with the riots that evolve DIRECTLY out of BLM marches. Just like I can separate MLK’s Civil Rights Movement from Malclom X’s movement that considered MLK an uncle Tom for rejecting violence to appease the white overseers, playing by the rules that the white man laid down for what is and is not acceptable behaviour for the black man.
How do you figure?
I don’t recall MLK threatening prosecutors with riots or using violent rhetoric or inciting violence during his marches. Can you or can’t you point to a couple of MLK marches that devolved into violence? Seems like a pretty simple question that you don’t seem to be able to answer.
The Civil Rights Movement was based on non-violent non-cooperation. The fact that there were other movement in the same time period (Black Panthers, Malcolm X) that embraced violence or actively encouraged it doesn’t associate the Civil Rights Movement led by MLK with that violence just because they are all black and all want the same thing. BLM marches have directly resulted in riots and looting. If occasional incidents of violence during protest are unavoidable, then please point to a couple of cases where this has happened in MLK marches.
So you don’t think that police generally bear any responsibility for Michael Slager but you think they bear some responsibility for Michael Slager? OF COURSE police bear some responsibility for Michael Slager. Its not an unreasonable position to say that the Michael Slager video creates the reasonable impression that cops have done this sort of shit in the past and are probably doing it still.
Do you think we can solve the problem entirely?
Can we also work to change BLM’s culture of violence as well? Or is that immutable, so we have to resign ourselves to occasional riots and looting in the name of a higher cause?
Can we blame the BLM members who don’t turn in rioters and looters? Can we blame the BLM members who sit idly by when demonstrations start to turn violent?
BTW, how do you change culture? If you can tell me that, we can open up a consulting firm and make gozillions of dollars helping companies change their culture.
Thousands have taken part. If it was just a handful of people are rioting, the police can shut it down and we don’t call them rioters, we call them convicts.
If your first demonstration devolved into violence, what would make you go ahead with a second one?
I agree that police have a duty that civilians do not. The evidence that I have that BLM folks are not cooperating in the investigations into rioting is that they are inciting the riots half the time. The riots are not an unfortunate side effect of peaceful protesting. They are a deliberate part of how they are protesting. Their attitude is that violence is the price of injustice, that law and order might work for the white folks but it is only working to oppress black people and while giving them little if any benefit. I can understand the sentiment. I utterly reject it as being useful in any way towards a resolution but I understand the sentiment.
The rioters are BLM protesters. Its hard to separate the two the way I can separate the black Panthers from MLK’s movement in the 1960s.
I think body CAMs would have happened fast almost regardless of what else was going on. There was pretty universal shock at the videos we were seeeing and frankly I didn’t need BLM to see those videos. What has BLM brought to your attention that CNN did not? What does BLM add to the mix that Huffington Post does not? Violence.
Much closer?:dubious:
Of course I should have. The Tea Party was almost deliberately bringing all the crazies out of the woodwork and it was relying on those crazies to help make its point. Just like BLM is bringing the violence rioters and looters out of the woodwork and it serves its purpose to have these violent rioters and looters involved because it adds an explanation point to their message. I have some hope that BLM has gotten to the point where the violence does more harm than good but in the beginning they seemed to be inciting violence almost on purpose.
That’s not what is being discussed. Where does ANYONE say that grabbing a boob or assault or rape or murder are acceptable.
The controversy in this particular tangent is whether grabbing a boob is in the same ballpark as rape. I presented the analogy of assault::murder as grabbing a boob::rape and I was told that this showed how little I understand of the issue.
So is grabbing sexual assault (such as grabbing a boob) in the same ballpark as rape (the forcible penis in vagina variety)?
Is sexual assault so much closer to rape than assault is to murder that it displays a lack of understanding of what grabbing a boob means?
iiandyiii and I have some disagreements on which reasonable people can disagree but on this particular issue, I think iiandyiii had jumped the shark (as I am sure I have in other areas). I am probably more sensitive to rioting and looting than iiandyiii and many others here who seem to see it as a cost of freedom sort of thing. iiandyiii seems more sensitive to sexual assault as opposed to some like me who see grabbing a boob as being orders of magnitude less serious than rape.
The “MLK marches” stuff is just goalpost shifting. I’m not going to dig into every single march that MLK was personally involved in since it has nothing to do with my point. The CR movement was far larger than just MLK, and there were many marches and protests associated that included related violent incidents. And quite similarly, contemporary white opinion of the CR movement was pretty much the same as modern white opinion of the BLM movement, and critics of both claimed they were intrinsically violent.
This seems to agree with my point – there is a problem in police culture, at least in many departments, related to the blue wall. This is far, far more damaging to society, and far, far more violent, than anything associated with BLM.
As much as we can solve any problem (which pretty much means “probably not, but we must still try”).
You keep saying things like BLM has a “culture of violence”, or “the rioters are BLM protesters”, and things like that. I don’t accept this, and I think you’re just projecting your personal biases. The vast majority of BLM supporters and protesters are entirely non-violent and have never taken part in a protest.
And you’re still ignoring that this essentially means any rich asshole can destroy any movement, by your criteria. I don’t accept this. Why do you? Why do you have a standard that makes it trivially easy to sabotage a movement?
Just more personal bias. I disagree on body cams (and other reforms in various departments – the latest one I heard was Denver changing its use-of-force policies) – I don’t think these would have happened if it weren’t for BLM.
Absolutely. The motivation is pretty much identical – use a woman’s body for one’s own gratification as an object (whether for reasons of lust, hatred, power, intimidation, or other), without regard to the desires of the woman. They’re still pretty different, but I put all such crimes in the same “ballpark”. Anyone capable of one is likely capable of the others.
I think your characterization of the motives of BLM here is skewed by your own biases. Isn’t it far more likely that the violence was unplanned and unwanted by most?
Former University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing’s murder trial has begun. Tensing killed 43 year old Sam DuBose during a traffic stop in July 2015 for a missing front license plate. Tensing’s statements regarding the situation and shooting were apparently contravened by his body cam footage, causing UC to fire him and prosecutors to charge him.
I’m just defining the goal posts differently than you.
Do you seriously think that I am unaware of the race riots of the Watts riots? Or the Black Panthers?
I don’t include everything that black people did during the civil rights movement as part of the civil rights movement.
There was deep unrest and frustration at the injustice in the system. Some people channeled that frustration towards the civil rights movement and others channeled it towards violence, rioting and looting. But they were not the same thing.
So you can’t point to a couple of MLK marches that devolved into rioting and looting? Hunh. I thought you said that these marches and demonstrations would inevitably devolve into rioting and looting from time to time because you can’t control who marches with you. Why is it that you can’t find MLK marches that devolved into rioting and looting but you can find OTHER demonstration that devolve into rioting and looting? Did MLK just get REALLY REALLY lucky?
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Or are we fighting fire with fire?
Yeah and we now have body cams. What more can we realistically do?
Wait. The vast majority of BLM protesters have never taken part in a protest? You are REALLY starting to expand the membership of BLM beyond anything that I think I can agree with.
I don’t think BLM is a terrorist organization but… the vast majority of Hamas does not actively engage in violence against Israel, Hamas is still a violent organization that uses violence to achieve its goals. The percentage of violent actors within a movement does not determine whether or not the movement is violent. You can measure that by the number of businesses burned, the number of people hurt or killed, the number of families whose livelihoods have been ruined by riots and looting.
BLM violence helped it to gain attention and supporters. BLM violence helped it to achieve goals they might not be able to achieve with peaceful protests (at least not as quickly). BLM uses threats of violence to twist the scales of justice to give them their desired outcome. BLM is a violent movement. They might be putting away that violence now that it seems to cost them more than it gains them but they were born in violence and derived much of their support from the attention they gained from their violence.
Why didn’t anyone sabotage the MLK marches, it was trivially easy to do, right? Were there no rich assholes back then?
I accept that BLM is a violent movement because they have been violent. I don’t really give a shit that they have a noble cause. Others can take up that noble cause, BLM does not have a monopoly on fighting injustice. If this means that cause is set back a bit, then we have no one to blame but BLM.
I disagree that peaceful BLM demonstration was the impetus for anything that wouldn’t have happened anyway. If the media didn’t investigate and focus our attention on these killings, nothing would have happened. The media was not about to ignore cases like Trayvon Martin or Walter Scott. The conversation would have happened regardless of whether or not BLM burned down Baltimore. What is it about the peaceful marches that you think made any sort of difference? The Reverend Al Sharpton has been marching for all sorts of shit for fucking decades and achieved almost nothing, what makes this rag tag group of protesters so much better at achieving change through peaceful demonstration? They were reacting to the same videos and news the rest of America was reacting to. We reacted by pointing our fingers at the police and the police started changing. BLM reacted by rioting and looting and the police sometimes changed faster and sometimes dug in their heels. BLM without the violence, rioting and looting doesn’t really affect very much of anything that democracy can’t do already.
We can put this in a different thread if you want but I can’t disagree more that forcing your penis into a woman’s vagina is in the same ballpark as grabbing a woman’s boob. I don’t think that everyone that is capable of grabbing a woman’s boob is capable of forcing their penis into her vagina against her will.
Who cares about most. If most of Hamas didn’t want innocent people to get blown up in the coffee houses of Israel, would that make Hamas any less violent? Just as Hamas tries to use violence to extract concessions from Israel, BLM uses violence to its advantage as well. You can point to as many peaceful BLM activists as you want. I only need a riot or two to make all those good intentions meaningless.
When did I ever say that marches and demonstrations “would inevitably devolve into rioting and looting”? As to why MLK never took part in a protest or a march that devolved (and I don’t know if this is true), it could be because he planned each one meticulously. Or some other reason. Or he could lucky.
It’s entirely irrelevant to my argument.
I’ve never promoted any “wrong”, or any kind of violence.
Continue to advocate for better use of force policies (which is already happening successfully in many communities) and other policies and practices; fight for corrections reform; fight for better reporting on use of force; continue to fight the blue wall; and much more.
I mis-typed… I meant that the vast majority of BLM protesters have never taken part in a riot.
What a bullshit comparison. Hamas’s stated goal is violent – the removal of Israel. BLM’s stated goals are non-violent and even anti-violence. And again, BLM is not responsible as a whole for the actions of a very very few.
Bullshit on every single sentence in this paragraph. It’s all false.
Are you agreeing with me that sabotaging a movement would be easy? Or do you disagree? That every single movement hasn’t been sabotaged with violence doesn’t disprove that it wouldn’t be relatively easy to do so. A relatively tiny amount of violence (compared to the violence they protest against, as well as violence in society) doesn’t and shouldn’t invalidate the entire movement.
I blame you. It’s your own biases that push you to oppose a just movement. I’d similarly blame anyone who opposed the CR movement because of occasional violence. Even if there had been occasional violence sprouting from MLK’s personal marches and protests, I’d still blame someone who said his movement was violent. It’s a mistake, and it hurts the movement, but it’s the fault of the individuals involved and not the movement at large.
I can’t even follow your argument now. You’re saying that BLM is violent, and that violence worked and did good things? But you can’t support them because they are violent? And if they were 100% peaceful, they wouldn’t have accomplished anything, but you would have supported them?
That’s nuts.
No need to put this in a different thread – this tells me a lot about you, and I see no need to delve in further unless you want to.
It would be pretty damn different if most of Hamas opposed violence against Israel. That would be monumentally different! Hamas might still deserve a lot of criticism, but a massive Palestinian movement against Israel whose members overwhelmingly rejected violence against Israel? Wow! That would be an enormous positive change!
Yes, you only need a riot or two to condemn a just movement. Unless it’s the CR movement and you can find rhetorical ways to ignore all the associated rioting. How about the gay rights movement? That started with a riot! Does that mean you discount and oppose the gay rights movement? Or anti-slavery movement? That included mass murder, with John Brown and Nate Turner. Do you oppose that movement because it included some violence?
I don’t believe you’re capable of seeing groups like this objectively, perhaps due to your own personal experience. From now on, I’ll consider putting you in the same category as Smapti when it comes to law enforcement – hopelessly damaged by your own personal experience such that you’re constitutionally unable to evaluate this issue objectively and reasonably.
…why the fuck should we care about what you, a random, anonymous person on the internet, considers is and isn’t part of the civil rights movement?
Your opinion is an aberration. I doubt there is any scholarly support for your opinion, the editors of wikipedia don’t support your opinion, I don’t see anyone of note in the black community claiming the riots weren’t part of the civil rights movement.
You are a lone opinion: loudly and angrily stomping your feet. I can feel the spittle on my face from here. Stop trying to literally re-write history. Your claims are reaching 9/11 Truth levels of absurdity. Don’t you think you’ve hijacked this thread enough with this nonsense? This thread is about controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians: it isn’t about how wrong you are about the civil rights movement.
You seemed to think that we should overlook the rioting and looting because it just can’t be helped. Because otherwise, the question becomes, why did BLM marches devolve into riots and looting.
Right. Lucky. And BLM is just afflicted with bad luck… or they tolerate violent rhetoric during their demonstrations.
If your argument is that BLM isn’t a violent movement then its pretty relevant.
You seem to be pretty open to the notion that we should overlook violence by this organization because they have such a noble purpose.
And how do you fight the blue wall, because frankly I don’t think any of that stuff required the existence of BLM.
I should have guessed that. LOL, that makes a lot more sense. Once again, the majority of hamas members have never taken part in a suicide bombing.
I’m sure they would be satisfied with the peaceful removal of Israel as well. I’m not equating the two, but if Hamas were doing all the things Hamas is doing today absent the violence, they would just be a Palestinian charitable organization. It is the violence by a tiny minority of Hamas members that that damns them.
Similarly, if BLM was doing everything they were doing today absent the violence, I could get behind them but the violence damns them. It’s not as damning as the case of Hamas because the violence is more deliberate but the violence is damning all the same.
Do you dispute that BLM gained significantly more press coverage and notoriety after the riots? That they grew as a movement in the wake of riots? Do you dispute that a lot of shit got done immediately in the aftermath of riots and looting? Do you dispute that other cities have responded to the threat of riots and looting by enacting reform? Do you dispute that BLM has threatened violence if things don’t go their way? Do you dispute that BLM has threatened violence when a prosecutor failed to indict a police officer?
Why didn’t anyone sabotage Martin Luther King Jr.? Was he in fact the Uncle Tom that the other black movement accused him of? The pet negro that didn’t get infiltrated with agents provocateur?
The fact of the matter is that BLM uses violent rhetoric. Their leaders make veiled threats of burning cities. They have had several riots with thousands of participants. If that doesn’t make for a violent movement then i suppose we just have different definitions of violence and when you can attribute violence to the people that incite that violence. The fact that not everyone is inciting violence does not make the movement peaceful.
I don’t oppose them in the sense that I try to achieve the opposite of their goals. I oppose all violent groups no matter how noble their cause might be. And so should you.
I might blame them as well, unless MLK was using violent rhetoric, inciting violence and making veiled threats of burning cities. Was MLK using violent rhetoric? inciting violence? making veiled threats about burning cities?
If BLM, despite their best efforts at trying to maintain calm and peace just lost control of the situation because police started beating them or something, I wouldn’t blame them. But when a march that is riddled with violent rhetoric devolves into violence, then not so much.
The movement at large uses violent rhetoric. this doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Its not like they have a calm peaceful march and then at the end of the march, a thousand of the protesters suddenly and without warning bust out into a riot.
I’m saying they used violence because they were getting results.
I am saying that the existence of BLM as a peaceful organization has achieved nothing because we don’t need them to bring our attention to anything. People come to the table to talk to BLM in no small part because they fear riots. Show me a police force that came to the table before the riots started.
Life is like that sometimes.
Your position that grabbing a boob is in the same ballpark as penis in vagina rape tells us all a lot about you as well. I wouldn’t mind starting a great debates thread about this to see if I’m the only miscreant that thinks that boob grabbing is in a different ballpark than penis in vagina rape. I don’t think I am.
I didn’t say they were exactly alike but lets say that most of the Hamas leaders rejected violence (while engaging in violent rhetoric and making veiled threats of violence when things don’t go their way) but the violence kept happening anyway by a small minority of Hamas members. Would that really be enough of an improvement to make you say that Hamas was not a violent organization?
You minimize riots the way you SAY that I minimize boob grabbing.
I don’t oppose the goals of BLM. I oppose BLM and all other violent organizations.
What is the violent gay rights organization that is analogous to BLM?
No, I don’t oppose the movement. I oppose the violence UNLESS democracy isn’t working and democracy is certainly not working in a slave state, almost by definition. Violence may be the only alternative in a defective democracy.
I don’t think you are capable of looking past their “noble cause” to see that they chant violent slogans during their marches. They have marches that devolve into riots. They have leaders inciting to riot. They have leaders making veiled threats of burning cities. How many of these dots do you need before you can connect the dots?
I was not aware that SMAPTI had some sort of personal experience with law enforcement.
You think the editors of Wikipedia think that the riots were part of the civil rights movement because they have a tag at the bottom of the page that says Civil Rights Movement? One of the tags at the bottom of the Civil Rights Movement page says non-violent resistance movements. So that must mean that the civil rights movement was non-violent, amirite?
If you’ve got some sort of encounter that you don’t think is getting adequate attention in this thread, please, don’t let me stop you from presenting it. Otherwise, while I appreciate your junior modding, its not really necessary to stop hijacks when its not interfering with anything. BLM is pertinent and germane to the subject of this thread and the legitimacy of BLM as a vehicle for change against police abuse is undermined by violence. But at least people seem to be coming around to the point that BLM is a violent organization but trying to justify that by painting the civil rights movement as violent too. I guess you can call that progress.
MLK keeps coming up in regards to riots. Almost as if he never commented on violence developing from protest:
Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.
A profound judgment of today’s riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, ‘If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.’
So King himself felt the civil rights movement had violence as a facet of the movement. And he blamed not the ones perpetuating the violence, but rather the white community.
…you think I’m talking about a fucking tag?
I’m talking about the fucking page.
How many other people share your unique views on history? Can you point me to a page on the internet that has a chronology of the American Civil Rights Movement that doesn’t include Harlem, Watts and Detroit?
If you think I’m junior modding you are free to report me. But I’ve been around this board long enough to know the rules and asking YOU if you think “haven’t you hijacked the thread enough?” isn’t an instruction, its a question.
You haven’t made this in this thread at all case at all.
Which people are those? Name names.
Part of the civil rights movement was violent. To deny that is to deny history.
I wonder if the election results, including which candidate LEOs most loudly supported, may change Smapti’s views a little…?
Any LEO who supported Donald Trump is a traitor and an idiot who is not qualified to wear a badge. He’s not going to make their jobs easier, he’s not going to make them safer, and he’s not going to reduce the crime rate.
In a better world they would all be purged from the civil service along with the rest of the people who have enabled the destruction of the American republic.