How long does it take to get shot if it turns out it wasn’t a toy gun?
Sometimes, yes. Perhaps not in this case, as I said, this is not a great example of police behavior.
Yeah, they could have taken it slower but ultimately, I don’t think I want to send a cop to jail for shooting someone who was waving around a gun in public and was holding a gun when he was shot and was probably holding the gun when he was shot (based on the location of the gun relative to the body).
And if they had shot him, I would agree.
But they were under no obligation to de-escalate…
Well, its easy to misinterpret a situation when the victim is waving around a gun.
OK, so your explanation is that driving up close gave them an excuse to kill the kid and THAT’S why they drove right up to the kid? :dubious:
Its possible that some of them were not violent. Judging from the videos there were plenty of violent protesters and I guess its possibly that they arrested some non-violent protesters but the size of the arrests does give us a sense of the scale of the violent protests.
If it was just Fox news, I would take a closer look. Do you need me to cite other news sources?
Your standards of behavior are exceedingly low for people on your side of the argument (which in many cases is also MY side of the argument).
What you call “inclined to be suspicious” is pretty much everyone that isn’t already in the tank for your side of the argument. Do you honestly think that the riots doesn’t affect how people perceive the movement as a whole? Because you seem to be going through a lot of effort to explain away something that is only going to affect people whoa re “already inclined to be suspicious”
What I suspect is that you fully understand how damaging these violent riots are to the movement and you want to minimize their impact. Well, I got some news for you, you are going to get a lot of support for that position on this board, there will be backslapping and attaboys but the fact is that outside of the confines of fairly liberal bubbles like this board, riots undermine the movement.
It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be peaceful. Like the Tea Party. Or Fred Phelps. Or the Women’s march. Or the march for life. Or the countless other peaceful protests and marches that I see here in Washington DC almost every week.
When BLM riots in a city that is majority black, has a black mayor, a majority black city council, has mostly black police commanders, has a 43% black police force. WTF are you violently protesting?
Protesting slavery or segregation today is silly. That’s like protesting the Japanese bombing of pearl harbor. We already won that fight.
What is being protested today is the seemingly disparate application of lethal force to blacks versus others. As we have seen, this is true in some places but in many of the protested incidents, the application of lethal force was justified.
There’s NO other explanation?
How about just the reputation of being a sundown town as the article said?
And can you give me an example of these subtle implied threats that is keeping this town 99% white? And what is keeping all the black people from this otherwise overwhelmingly black part of the country from dealing with authority? Why not make the rest of the region white by making these subtle implied threats of violence?
I think they are always under this obligation when it’s possible. De-escalation should be the default, only violated when it’s not possible.
Rice wasn’t, at any point, during their encounter.
No, my explanation is that they were incompetent to the point of negligence. Such negligent behavior should be strongly sanctioned, as the local judge has said.
It tells me nothing at all. There have been mass arrests of protesters before with no indictments – I’m not assuming this one is all “good” arrests just because it’s a large number, and a few were violent on tape.
There have been some genuine riots, but not very many. Mostly it’s been small amounts of violence blown out of proportion.
Riots hurt the movement – any violence and bad behavior hurts the movement. But only because so many Americans are uninformed, ignorant, have racist inclinations or biases (e.g. they would only trust a black protest movement if 100% of the people involved were perfect 100% of the time, or similar), are unconcerned with police brutality against black people, or the like.
Most of the marches and events are peaceful. A few haven’t been, which sucks. See above.
Police brutality and unjust treatment of black people – which has little to do with the race of police officers. It’s far more about police culture, and society in general, than the individual feelings of cops.
It’s not just lethal force – it’s unjust non-lethal force, or just being treated with greater suspicion (random searches and the like).
There could be a million such examples – miniature burning crosses, or little nooses, that appear in the yard and then vanish with no trace. Phone calls in the middle of the night (maybe no words – just heavy breathing, or laughing, or whatever). Getting bumped into any time one walks in the street, with no apology. Being followed at night. Pets that disappear. Etc.
As for why this behavior (in this region, at least) is confined to Vidor – such a thing is not easy. It probably requires the cooperation, or at least toleration, from most of the influential people in the town. That’d be much harder in a wider area. Further, it’s a lot easier to keep people out who aren’t there yet than to evict people. Folks fight a lot harder to stay in their long-time homes and neighborhoods than somewhere they just moved into.
I wonder why you think the federal efforts have all failed? Why do you think that, whenever they moved black people into the town, they all moved out within months? Just coincidence?
I disagree. De-escalation is entirely inappropriate when there is a gun involved. de-escalation is not really appropriate while you are arresting someone.
True but he was probably holding a gun at the time he was shot.
Sanctioned with what? A murder charge? And the local judge can say whatever she wants outside a courtroom, inside a courtroom in an actual case, there are standards of evidence that have to be met before you can “strongly sanction” someone
How many do you think is a few? because the j20 crowd wasn’t really small and they were not peaceful demonstrators.
So he media has been blowing the riots out of proportion for ratings like they blow the police brutality out of proportion for the ratings?
If the Tea party had been violent, I would have no problem calling it a violent movement. I think that applies to a lot of people who are turned off by the violent nature of BLM.
Yes and they should stop and think and start over.
Wait, so the race of the cop is irrelevant to racism in who the cops decide to shoot and kill? It more meta than that?
So black cops don’t trust black people more than they don’t trust white people? :dubious: Why?
You got evidence of any of this?
I read about ONE federal effort that was me with resistance by people mostly from outside the town.
I left out various arguments that I thought were entirely pointless to respond to.
IANAL, but I think manslaughter or negligent homicide would fit. But I don’t know for sure. A single incident being handled a certain way doesn’t fix this problem – we’ll know that it’s not fixed when cops and departments stop acting in a reflexively defensive manner, regardless of the facts of the instances in question, routinely.
BLM is not violent – the vast majority of BLM events and marches have been non-violent.
I’m not interested in discussing this part any more – you’re going to call BLM a “violent movement” because you’re married to that phrase. If it’s not a “violent movement” than you can’t be so harshly critical anymore, so you’re never going to give it up. Boring to hear this over and over again.
If they want to assuage the concerns of the ignorant, slightly bigoted, unconcerned about brutality, and the like, then perhaps. I don’t think so, though.
[quote]
Wait, so the race of the cop is irrelevant to racism in who the cops decide to shoot and kill? It more meta than that?
Black people are not immune to various forms of subtle and not so subtle racism in society. It’s not a coincidence that experiments show black children preferring to play with white dolls, and saying that the black dolls are bad.
These were hypothetical examples. The very nature of the region makes such evidence highly unlikely – but I think it’s reasonable to speculate considering the ridiculousness of a ~99% white town in the region. No, there’s no other explanation. These things don’t end up like this by coincidence.
I’m from the region, by the way. I’ve driven through Vidor dozens of times (though not for about a decade), and saw the racist graffiti and handwritten KKK signs (which often disappeared, only to reappear the next week somewhere else).
As you have said, this is not a great example, because that someone was not holding a gun, and the cop that shot him should never have been a police officer under any circumstances.
Isn’t de-escalation better for everyone? Better for the person being arrested (they stay alive), better for the cops (they don’t get hurt), better for the city (no lawsuits or controversy), better for community (they might think that cops actually give a fuck about their lives)? Shouldn’t de-escalation be the* goal?*
Sure we can drop it and let people decide for themselves if violence at BLM events undermines the entire movement or not. I think it is almost a certainty that it undermines their legitimacy and it is my opinion that this it is not unfair that their legitimacy gets undermined when so many of their protests turn violent.
So black cops are self loathing race traitors?
So do you think the KKK is a violent organization? AFAICT, the vast majority of KKK events are peaceful (except when they get attacked), and sure their philosophy attracts people who might be inclined to violence and their rhetoric might incite some bad apples to become violent but the KKK and white nationalism but would you call white nationalism a violent movement?
I mean can you really infer threats of violence in Vidor merely because there is KKK graffiti in the area?
No, not when a suspect is resisting arrest.
If you can get officers to back off by resisting arrest then you have virtually eliminated the police power.
No. This has nothing to do with anything I said.
Responses like this make me doubt that you’re interested in actual conversation.
Considering the history of the KKK, and their goals (many/most of which are explicitly violent), then yes.
Well done comparing the KKK and BLM. I’ll keep this in mind for the future.
How is shooting them or beating them down to the point where they fucking DIE* preferable? And de-escalation does not equal ‘backing off’.
*pretty much the point of this thread
Because it is better overall if the police are authorized to use violence to make a legitimate arrest and the subject resists, even if occasionally the subject dies or is injured.
Yes, de-escalation should be the goal, if possible. If.
Regards,
Shodan
We were talking specifically about Eric Garner and he wasn’t beaten to death or shot.
In fact I can’t identify any victims that were actually beaten to death. Can you? Or were you engaging in hyperbole?
And shooting them is preferable to risking grave injury or death to the police on the scene or public. Where this is not the case then the shooting is not justified, where this IS the case then it IS justified.
So the KKK which hasn’t had a violent protest in recent history is a violent organization because it has reprehensible goals and aims while BLM which has had several violent protests is NOT a violent organization because you like their goals and aims.
I don’t think we should label organizations and movement as violent just because we don’t like them. I think we should label organizations and movement as violent because they have actually been violent.
In fact some commentators ascribe the decline of the Klan’s popularity more to its violence than its philosophy. And the Klan seems to agree because it has dialed back the violence and ramped up the rhetoric. But the Klan is forever tainted by that history of violence and the white nationalism banner is now being carried by new organizations that hold pretty much the same philosophy as the Klan but without the violence.
Well comparing them to the Tea party didn’t seem to have any effect so i thought I would point out that your non-violent (except when they are) BLM movement is more violent than the fucking KKK and if THAT doesn’t make you stop and wonder if maybe BLM is violent then I don’t know what will.
There has been plenty of violence associated with the KKK and other white supremacists recently. Not as much as 60 years ago, but still a significant amount. It’s total bullshit to assert that BLM is more violent.
This discussion has run it’s course. Your unwillingness to give any benefit of the doubt to an organization that has done tons of good things recently, along with just a little bid of bad things (pretty minuscule, in fact, in the scheme of things), ceases to be interesting to me.
I get the impression that you’d disavow any Jewish anti-anti-semitism movements if they beat up one or two neo-Nazis every 6 months. Such stubbornness, or bigotry, or whatever it is, is as boring as your endless Hillary bashing.
Actually,** iiandyiiii **pointed out in the very part you quote that he thinks the goals and aims of the KKK are not simply reprehensible, but “many/most” are violent.
Making it totally about like vs. do not like ignores that fairly important point. It’s like if me and iiandyiiii are individual protestors, and he punched someone in the face recently while I have not… but the end goal of my protest is to murder someone. I would consider it reasonable to argue that I am a more violent person than he is. And even if you disagree on that general idea - that’s what iiandyiiii seems to believe, so, for him, it isn’t about “this group is more violent because their end goals are unpleasant to me”, it’s “this group is more violent because their end goals are violent”.
You’ve finally lost all shreds or credibility. I’m done with you.
This hypothetical was meant to be set in early Nazi Germany. Should have made that clear (and should have said Nazis rather than neo-Nazis).
I thought it was clear we were talking about something more recent than the civil rights movement. No doubt that the KKK USED to be more violent than BLM. Cna you make an argument that they are more violent than BLM today?
cite?
I don’t think BLM has done anything that wouldn’t have happened anyway after the release of those videos. In what way does a violent organization deserve the benefit of the doubt? Their cause may be just, but they are not.
If you are telling me that BLM is the only vehicle for advancing this cause then the ACLU would like to have a word with you.
I think you may be right. I will never excuse violence within an organization the way you do (regardless of how I feel about and the righteousness of their cause) you will never condemn it the way I do (if you believe their cause is just enough).
They rioted in Baltimore, a city with a black mayor, a majority black city council, a black police chief. A majority black police leadership. 40%+ black police officers. Yeah I’m pretty sure that deserves disavowing. I would probably disavow any movement that beat up two people that disagreed with them.
They rioted over the deaths of black men who were justifiably killed by cops.