That has to do with the second part of the quote that you quoted. the “and that has never changed” part.
No, it would be like using it as part of the history of human spaceflight to someone who doesn’t believe we’ve been to the moon.
Is your point that law enforcement was not used to enforce slavery?
The point that matters is that you insist on a phantasmagorical explanation, out of whole cloth, which exceeds credulity.
If it was personal between two criminals without being motivated by racism, why did three other officers help in the killing or at best stand by without intervening? Had all 5 of them worked at that club? Were all of them going to split an ill gotten $20 five ways (and if you took out the $5 cost of the cigarettes purchased to break the bill, that makes five miscreants sharing $15-so $3 each)?
Please step back and answer what skin you have in this game? Why insist on this incredibly far-fetched scenario to absolve that cop?
Ask yourself: is there a pattern in this officer’s behavior? Or had the previous complainants also worked alongside him at the same club?
I have no idea what you are talking about- and I dont really care.
No, my point is that the ORIGINS of police is not rooted in slavery- which was claimed here and is utterly false.
Police have been misused to do many bad things. So have the military.
He isnt trying to absolve that cop. I dont see anywhere that is is claiming the cop isnt guilty. Chauvin killed Floyd for no legal reason.
Do we have ANY evidence at all that the killing was racially motivated? Other than the fact one was black, one was white. Could it not simply be that a cop with a history of anger went too far?
:smack: The issue was never George Floyd. He was just the “straw that broke the camel’s black.” Police are killing hundreds of people per year, unnecessarily injuring or tazing tens of thousands of people per year, harassing millions of innocent people per year. Enough is enough!
Reading some of the comments in this thread makes me worry for the future of America. Many hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets all around the world to protest police brutality, and some want to change the discussion to imagined misdeeds of Antifa!
Godwin be damned — I think this ilk would have condemned any protests against the lawfully elected government of Adolf Hitler.
All of you supporting the cops and pretending racism isn’t a problem need to watch this Trevor Noah vidoe. (Just kidding. I know there’s not a chance in hell any of you apologists for American racism will watch it.)
While it was only food looted: Chicago police lounged in Rep. Bobby Rush's burglarized office
In this case, the cops were accomplices to looting, handcuffing the store owners to protect the people making off with property: Police handcuff people trying to protect store from apparent looters, while suspects run away - CBS News
Here are cops destroying people’s property. While it’s more of a ‘war crime’ than just looting since they’re attacking medical stations, it’s still a good example:
Yeah, and they drank coffee too. Come on, call that “looting” is stretching a point to absurdity.:rolleyes:
Yeah, they stopped guys from shooting protestors/looters. :rolleyes:
The excuse for that is that those "medical stations’ were primarily water bottles and food, and the protestors were throwing the full water bottles at the police.
That you don’t care is probably one of the reasons that you have a hard time understanding.
The origins of many of our police departments are in fact rooted in slavery.
It was not a misuse of the police, it was promoting law and order. The Constitution was quite clear about that.
No it’s not. Breaking into someone’s office and helping yourself to their stuff is very much looting, and highlights the sheer arrogance and contempt of the police involved. Are you saying that if a bunch of people in BLM slogans broke into a restaurant and made themselves a meal, you would claim it’s ‘absurdity’ to call that looting?
In other words, they decided to loot medical supplies and water bottles, and made up a transparently absurd excuse for doing so. And EVEN THOUGH THE CHIEF OF POLICE thinks that what they did was unjustified and apologized for it, you still claim it was justified. Taking other people’s property is looting, trying to excuse it with nonsense that even the chief of police doesn’t buy is just extreme bootlicking.
Now we are changing from the origin on PD in America is rooted in slavery to many police dept are rooted in slavery.
OK, name them. Give a cite for each one.
It is not changing, it is clarifying. This really isn’t that hard. Do you deny that police departments existed before slavery ended?
I’m not even sure what it is that you are trying to contradict, and even less sure as to why.
Do you deny that there were laws that required that as a part of law enforcement, that slavery was enforced prior to the the abolishment of slavery?
Unless what you are trying to say is that the Boston Police Department was not required to assist in the capture and return of slaves, then I have no idea what it is that you are trying to accomplish here.
Do you deny that there were laws that required that as a part of law enforcement, that segregation was enforced prior to the civil right act?
Tell me, when did Birmingham’s police department get abolished, or is it the same one that had Bull Connor as Commissioner of Public Safety?
If you deny any of those, please explain why. If you do not, then I have no idea what point you think you are trying to make.
Here, just read this, or this, or this. I could essentially re-write it for you, but I don’t feel wasting any more of my time trying to explain this to you. Just let me know if you have any questions.
Also, can you please tell me what you consider to be the value that someone can take without permission during a riot before it is considered to be looting, in your opinion? Or is it the case that if someone breaks into your house and starts drinking your coffee, you would make them popcorn?
Oh, while I’ve got you. You made reference to an NPR interview that you heard, without actually giving any sort of citation for it. Another poster did the work for you and tracked down what they thought it was, but apparently, that was not the one you were talking about. Could you please actually cite your claim, so that anyone else can have any idea what it is that you are talking about. You are asking for some rather dubious cites to back claims that were not made, but you refuse to even cite your own claim that you seemed to have formed a rather strong opinion from.
SMH, it’s like you think that history didn’t begin until last week.
After long discussion, this will earn you a warning, septimus. It is never best practices to personalize your posts to make them insults.
This is what I objected to:
Originally Posted by Acsenray
…
Indeed, our entire police system has its genesis in racial domination.
That is totally false, and I proved it with cites.
Now, of course the police have been a tool of racist politicians, and of course they were used to capture slaves. So?
Horses were used to capture slaves. Ships were used to capture and transport slaves. Cotton was grown by slaves. Do horses or ships have their roots in slavery? Does cotton?
No, and neither do police.
This post is classic goalpost moving- from the police in America started as a tool for slavery-to- the police have sometimes been used as a tool for slavery. No doubt. So?
So, your only contention here is that slave and segregation enforcement was not the only job of the police?
No one has disagreed with that. The goalposts are right where they started. You were sounding like you were disagreeing that police were used to enforce slavery and segregation, since when we said that police were used to enforce slavery and segregation, you disagreed.
Really not sure what your point is here. Mine is that when you start with enforcing slavery and segregation as a part (and a large part) of your duties, that just because some politicians in DC signed some pieces of paper does not change the culture.
The same people were out patrolling the streets after emancipation as before. The same people were patrolling the streets after Jim Crow as during.
Maybe this would be easier if you could say exactly what it is that you are disagreeing with here.
The point that is being made by Acsenray is that the police that we have here in the United States were largely created for extremely racist reasons, and that it takes more than just policy to change to change culture.
Nothing that you have said has contradicted this. Is this something that you actually do disagree with? If so, please tell me when Birmingham PD fired all of its cops that fought against civil rights protesters to usher in a new era of understanding. If not, then what point exactly is it that you are trying to make here?
Slavery wasn’t the sole mechanism of racial domination in American history. Some of the most institutionally racist police forces in the country are in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, which were not places where slavery was legal.
So Chauvin should have no trial and just be found guilty?
Well yes, I’m sure for any one else there would be no trial, white or black. He is clearly guilty of some kind of homicide. Any normal citizen would have already got the 15 year plea deal, and would be locked up right now. Its an issue of police corruption
And to be fair Flyod wasn’t a citizen either. He terrorized his community, just the same as Chauvin did. Both of them thought they were above the law.
I know people don’t like bring up the records, but it matters, the country is being destroyed off the back of this nonsense.
Whether we feels he’s guilty or not, he is at least entitled to due process.
The police in the US were not created for extremely racist reasons. They were created for the same reason they were created in every country in the world. If slavery had never existed police would still exist in the same form they do today.