I see. One video is enough evidence for you to condemn an entire organization.
I wonder if I can find a video somewhere around here featuring police violence on an innocent person. If I found one would that convince you to steer clear of all police officers? Or does your broad brush only use black ink?
I don’t know that there’s an official list of protests “organized by #BlackLivesMatter” to compare against, but certainly Ferguson wasn’t peaceful, or Milwaukee, or Dallas, or Baltimore, or Oakland. I believe one of the founders of #BlackLivesMatter was arrested for blocking a train. Violence and blocking traffic certainly appear to be hallmarks of their protests.
Not to sound flip, but if recording what would appear to be a justifiable shooting on a body cam still results in the town being burnt and looted, then what exactly did the body cam accomplish?
No. But of the subset of “controversial police killings” for want of a better phrase, I’d bet on a large majority being outright murder by the standards average civilians are judged by, and definitely by the standards black men are judged by. Like I said, the culture of the “blue wall” and defending every outright criminal action an officer commits in “the line of duty” needs to change whether police are actually getting away with murder or not (but they are – often and systematically). The way the system is currently structured, it calls into suspicion every use of force, and every decision made by the police departments, the police unions, and every argument made by police apologists. Police have lost whatever trust they might have had, and if they ever hope to win it back, it’s going to take systemic change, not pulling people over to give them ice cream and playing basketball with kids for the cameras.
You’re saying that there wouldn’t have been any reaction had the shooting not been recorded? I doubt that. If anything, recordings of a justified shooting will mitigate, even if in a small way, any anger that the shooting causes. But it’s not about immediate reactions or the short term – body cams are about restoring long-broken trust between law enforcement and many communities. It won’t happen quickly, but it needs to happen.
Further, there will always be differences of opinion on whether a shooting is justified. Even if a cop (for example) might have been justified in pulling the trigger, was he justified in drawing his weapon? In the way he approached the soon-to-be-killed person? Did he escalate or de-escalate the confrontation? A cop might have justifiably shot someone who drew a knife, but maybe the cop should have approached the situation differently, and maybe many cops routinely approach situations with black people differently and are more likely to escalate or take other actions that lead to force being used. It’s not just about shootings – it’s about the entirety of the way law enforcement interacts with people and communities of color.
But where are the marches demanding the members of their own community stop victimizing them? Where are the marches asking for more help from police to get rid of the scum?
If that was the only time and place they’d use violence to try to get their message out, I might be inclined to give them a pass (as iiandyiii seems willing to) as the actions of a few troublemakers. The problem is that the movement’s protests have been marred by violence all across the country. It’s a feature of the organization, not a bug, according to some.
No, I’m saying that there probably would have been rioting and looting regardless.
The problem was that police were shooting black citizens without reason. The answer was rioting and looting.
A measure to bring this police misconduct to light was the use of body cams - now we can see that innocents are being executed.
The body cam in this instance shows the citizen ignoring police orders to drop his weapon and surrender, instead raising it to engage police, resulting in him being shot. The answer was rioting and looting.
Did the body cam make any difference?
There are plenty of marches and other protests against violence and crime in black communities and led by black community leaders every year. If you’re not seeing them, it’s because you’re not looking.
In this particular hypothetical instance? I don’t know. Do you believe that if body cameras aren’t helpful in every single instance that they’re not worth using?
Facts are a motherfucker, aren’t they? The best part is, facts do not care about your emotions, nor your forced narratives.
As a “white folk” born and raised on the south side of Chicago, I have grown tired with sadness at the continuous deaths of black children, always at the hands of another black person; more specifically: black men. Yet, BLM never lends a helping hand.
Black people are slaughtering other black people at grossly disproportionate numbers, yet BLM chooses to focus on those responsible for less than 1% of said deaths.
BLM does not represent most black people. Most black people are greaful for the police, and show them great respect.
BLM, along with white-guilt Caucasians, encompass BLM. Their sole purpose is to divert from the high and disproportionate amount of violence being perpetrated by blacks. They also wish to divert from the high absentee father rates; and the high gang rates.
BLM are a bunch of radical thugs.
Do you believe organizations that help prevent black on black crime get equal attention through social and mainstream media as the BLM movement?
Why would they want to do that?
Polling shows that most black people support Black Lives Matter, and only 12% oppose it. Also in this poll, more Americans of all types support the movement than oppose it. And most of your claims about them are entirely contrary to the facts as I understand them.
Probably not, but I don’t know for sure. Why do you ask?
I’m not sure if you’ve provided a relevant fact. The organization - which for the record I’m sympathetic to but not fully onboard with - is fundamentally about opposing the racism that still exists in our society by highlighting how injustice is still perpetrated through institutions, even if many individuals have progressed a long way in racial views over the last many decades.
The facts you cite are all a red herring, a distraction from the issue of racism in our society. When confronted with facts of how institutions do not treat black people fairly, many respond with one of two non sequiturs. First, either deny that racism exists by blaming African Americans for different problems.
Second, chant a slogan - “all lives matter” - as though anyone disagrees with it. It has been shown time and time again, it is strange how those who use that phrase cannot actually bring themselves to speak the words “black lives matter.” Weird, huh?
Wasn’t really hypothetical, do a Google search for “Sylville Smith body cam”, it’s been in the news the last couple of days.
Not at all, but if the reaction is the same with or without body cameras, I have to wonder. There’s also the possibility that body cams may show what the protesters don’t want to see - that the person being shot wasn’t a blameless innocent. The narrative could be laid out however the protesters see fit without body cam evidence.
How do you know the reaction is the same? Maybe it would have been worse with no footage. In any case, a single instance proves absolutely nothing about the efficacy of body cameras. And the instances (Groubert, Walter Scott, and more) in which the body camera caught bad shootings that may not have otherwise been revealed demonstrates some value to body cameras.
Just a minor point: in the case of Groubert, it was a “dash cam” not a “body cam” that captured the shooting, and in the case of Walter Scott, it was a bystander on, I believe, a cell phone. Slager didn’t have a body camera.
ETA: but I agree with the larger point that cameras are valuable tools for monitoring police activities.
Thanks for the clarification, you are correct.