Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 578 of 670 (882556)
09-28-2020 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Hyroglyphx
09-24-2020 11:28 AM


Re: Jacob Blake handcuffed to his hospital bed ???
Hyroglyphx writes:
I see you've gone full Woketard which means there is absolutely no hope for you. We are the absolute furthest away from a "police state" the West has ever been. Its literally the exact opposite where lawlessness and chaos rules the day.
Wow, now you're going full Trump!
We are the closest we've ever been to becoming a police state with Trump and Barr threatening to take local law enforcement into their own hands and labeling primarily peaceful protests as anarchy.
Handcuffing a prisoner in a hospital where he is being treated for his injuries is the precise balance you speak of. If a prisoner would be denied access to healthcare -- that would be outrageous. There is nothing, whatsoever, outrageous about handcuffing a prisoner. Nothing. As to your plaintiff cries about innocence until proven guilty, as if to insinuate that the police only deal with malicious intent, do try to remember how the law functions.
With the wall of legal invulnerability of police gradually crumbling it would be in their best interest to behave with humanity after shooting someone seven times. Handcuffing someone shot seven times would be further evidence of denying their humanity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-24-2020 11:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 580 of 670 (882563)
09-28-2020 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 571 by Hyroglyphx
09-27-2020 8:16 PM


Re: Protests
Hyroglyphx writes:
You're still on your "bad apple" kick. The problem isn't bad apples. The problem is systemic. The problem is an environment that encourages the dehumanization of people not like the white majority
LOL, yeah okay... you read that in an article in Newsweek? What a vicious lie, Percy.
Police arrest disproportionate numbers of non-whites. Them's the facts.
If you honestly believe that a majority of police officers are doing whatever they can to dehumanize people that aren’t white, then the real issue is that you are exposed to only the most negative cases and never, ever the overwhelming number of cases that help people of all races without prejudice. This isn’t the Antebellum South.... if you feel this way then maybe it speaks more to your hang ups and implicit biases.
You are again putting your own words in my mouth, and since they're your words I guess it's more revealing about your own "hangups and implicit biases." Go back and read what I actually said.
Except that "all police officers" do not resent Derek Chauvin.
Really??? I’ve never met even one Chauvin apologist let alone heard of one. Are you referring to all of 6 people nationwide?
I haven't "met" any either, but how about the head of the Minneapolis police union, of which Chauvin is a member.
And BLM is getting increasing pushback from the paler portions of our citizenry.
LOL the overwhelming majority of BLM are disaffected white college suburb kids disconnected with reality! It’s a bunch of white losers pretending to play revolutionary cosplay
And what pushback are you referring to? Not wanting to be accosted in the street for existing? Upset that their family business of 40 years was burned down for being in the way?
Wow. Just wow. Try this Google search.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-27-2020 8:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2020 5:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 581 of 670 (882565)
09-28-2020 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by Hyroglyphx
09-28-2020 11:50 AM


Re: Protests
Hyroglyphx writes:
You insist that racism among law enforcement is systemic while simultaneously implying that on a case by case basis we cannot know the individual motivations, but the peanut gallery, every time there is a critical incident involving white police officer(s) and a black subject is that it must have been racially motivated. That is a contradictory position to hold.
The "peanut gallery" position is not a position I hold - it's a position consistent with your own in that it implies an inability to understand statistics. I hold the position that societal and thereby also law enforcement racism is systemic.
So you think that if it weren't for CNN nobody would have ever heard of George Floyd? You think police misconduct isn't news?
No, I'm suggesting that CNN is in the business of manufacturing news instead of reporting on it. CNN, the absolute worse of the worst. They drive narratives that otherwise should be left to the observer to speculate on why something occurred.
In that case you weren't replying to anything I said. We weren't discussing CNN. You said the news media gives undeserved attention to white cops killing blacks, and I called it out for what it was, typical racist white grievance crap.
There are almost no media outlets remaining that objectively report news.
And this is typical right wing conspiracy theory nonsense.
You do realize, I hope, that you're equally "geographically disconnected."
No, I am boots on the ground living it and experiencing it. I go into the black neighborhoods and physically speak with the residents while everyone else is relying on Don Lemon to tell them what they should be believing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I never even heard of Don Lemon. Obviously the right wing media has taken over your mind.
How do these support your position that Antifa is playing any meaningful role
Ask the residents of Portland and Seattle. They know it better than anyone else.
You are again falling victim to right-wing nonsense that originates with Trump. Antifa is a small fringe group. Right-wing extremism is a far greater threat.
Not only that but there wasn't a single respected source among them, such as The BBC, The New Yorker, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, etc.
Your idea of a "respected outlet" is a medium that tells you what you want to hear through a series of confirmation biases. Every single one of those outlets have been exposed at one time or another pushing exploitative pieces that present fiction as fact. I'm not the one who thinks that mainstream media is the only verifiable way to retrieve data sets.
So you prefer to get your news from sources like the state-run Turkish news outlet and British tabloids?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-28-2020 11:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 582 of 670 (882566)
09-28-2020 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by Hyroglyphx
09-28-2020 2:55 PM


Re: Jacob Blake handcuffed to his hospital bed ???
Hyroglyphx writes:
Blake had been shot seven times. Criminal and civil suits will take into account not only the shooting but also Blake's subsequent treatment. You know nothing of Kenosha, Wisconsin, police nor of Blake, yet you are automatically biased in favor of the police into believing the shooting was justified and that Blake, whose three sons were in the back seat of his SUV when he was shot, was both capable of flight and a flight risk. Way to be objective.
He had a warrant for his arrest. He had prior violence charges. Multiple means of non-lethal force were applied beforehand but failed. He failed to obey a lawful command while at gunpoint. He lunged into the car in such a manner that is akin to reaching for something, not sitting in the car. The shooting was at close range thereby not placing the children in any immediate danger. Maybe just the teensiest bit of onus on Blake? Whattya think?
What do I think? I think you ignored my points and displayed extreme inhumanity. You are as "geographically disconnected" from Kenosha, Wisconsin, as I am. You are obviously okay with anything the police do to people they're pissed at.
This is obvious bullshit. There are nerve points familiar to any medical professional that when tapped cause involuntary muscle contractions, the point just below the knee being familiar to everyone. The prisoner did not fool nurses and doctors. Why don't you put a name to your claim so we verify the veracity of your account. So far it's got all the credibility of one of Trump's, "Everyone's saying..."
Obvious bullshit is not always so obvious. You probably should have just asked for me to corroborate it before immediately launching into accusation mode.
Are you drunk? There are reflex points such as below the knee that make faking paralysis with medical professionals impossible. You claimed he faked paralysis and fooled even nurses and doctors, and then you cited an article that says nothing about paralysis, nurses or doctors. What is the matter with you? You're not even trying to make sense.
And before you ask about the "undisclosed condition," it would have been a HIPAA violation to release medical information to the media. He threw himself down a flight of stairs and feigned paralysis. The deputy failed to follow protocol, thinking paralyzed people can't run away.
Please reread the article you cited and describe where it says anything about this guy being paralyzed. Here's what the relevant portion actually says:
quote:
The man-hunt continues for 34-year-old Dacious June Parker, also known as Corey. He was supposed to be heading to prison for 20 years, instead, he’s free, after escaping from University Medical Center at Breckenridge, where he was being treated for an undisclosed condition.
He was just wanting to get away and waited for the opportune time for the officer not be there and bolted, said Roger Wade, senior public information officer with the Travis County Sheriff’s Office.
Wade says Parker ran from his room, un-handcuffed once a deputy stepped out for just a moment. He’s now asking the public to be cautious.
Got that? Nothing about paralysis, nurses or doctors. I assume next you'll claim you're privy to non-public information and that we should just trust you that this guy could control his nerve reflexes.
Uh, he was shot seven times?
Yeah, and? People shot are still capable of presenting a threat. You shoot until they no longer present a threat.
Well, yes, we know that when frightened that police tend to empty their weapons into the perceived threat. That's two reasons why most police shouldn't have guns: they too often perceive severe threats where little or none exist, and then they panic and keep firing until they're out of ammo.
You're beginning to sound like some kind of monster.
Some facts, however uncomfortable and unfortunate they may be, are nevertheless facts.
What facts? Everything you said was wrong, including what you said about your own article.
It is what it is. It's one thing to continue to fire when somebody is still making furtive movements and it's another to continue to fire into an obviously lifeless body. Which is reasonable and which is a situation of overkill?
It's all pretty repugnant.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-28-2020 2:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 585 of 670 (882636)
10-02-2020 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 584 by Hyroglyphx
09-29-2020 5:19 PM


Re: Protests
Hyroglyphx writes:
Police arrest disproportionate numbers of non-whites. Them's the facts.
Well, there is only 3 choices when it comes to explaining why that might be.
1. Minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crimes when compared to whites per capita.
2. That minorities are being systematically being framed for crimes committed by white people.
3. Some combination of both.
Your list is incomplete, you forgot systemic racism.
You are again putting your own words in my mouth, and since they're your words I guess it's more revealing about your own "hangups and implicit biases." Go back and read what I actually said.
Okay, I read it. Now defend your implicit biases. Look, you're white and the fact of the matter is that you have implicit biases that are both etched into your DNA and that has been taught to you by cultural influence. The sooner that you accept it, the sooner we can move on.
So *I* have implicit biases, but police officers don't?
I haven't "met" any either, but how about the head of the Minneapolis police union, of which Chauvin is a member.
Do you usually use extreme outliers and statistical anomalies to represent all or most police? The fact of the matter is that when it comes to the George Floyd case, there is as close to a near identical consensus as one could possibly get. A few of his buddies does not represent the majority opinion either among police officers or among the general public.
You are again putting words in my mouth. I did not say that the head of the Minneapolis police union represented all or most police. You implied there were extremely few defenders of Derek Chauvin, so I named a very significant one. And here's an article about Facebook removing groups supporting Chauvin: Inside Facebook Groups that Support Derek Chauvin
Why don't you reply to my actual position? I believe there is systemic societal racism in this country. You, me and the police are all members of this society. It will take hard work to a) protect the subjects of societal racism from it; b) eliminate societal racism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2020 5:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 586 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-02-2020 3:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 588 of 670 (882640)
10-02-2020 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by Hyroglyphx
10-02-2020 3:44 PM


Re: Protests
Hyroglyphx writes:
Your list is incomplete, you forgot systemic racism.
That would be the second choice.
No, that would not be the second choice. Systemic racism is not "minorities...being systematically framed for crimes committed by white people." Just for a couple examples, "driving while black" and "hanging out while black" are not crimes committed by white people that blacks get arrested for.
You're not even trying. You haven't even bothered to inform yourself what systemic racism is, yet you're trying to discuss it anyway.
So *I* have implicit biases, but police officers don't?
I'm just pointing a mirror at your own arguments.
Not that anyone can tell.
You are again putting words in my mouth. I did not say that the head of the Minneapolis police union represented all or most police. You implied there were extremely few defenders of Derek Chauvin, so I named a very significant one.
That's because there are very few. The original point is that not all police officers de facto defend all police actions,...
You are defending an argument not made. If the only arguments you can rebut are ones you make up yourself, why are even bothering? It isn't like what your'e doing isn't incredibly obvious.
You claimed vanishingly few police officers support Chauvin, emphasizing your pont by sarcastically saying that there must be around six in the whole country.
It is a dangerous proposition to remove people's self-agency and viewing them as an homologous unit.
"Homologous unit"? Did you mean "homogenous unit?" At least that would make sense, even though it's just more deflection.
And here's an article about Facebook removing groups supporting Chauvin: Inside the Facebook groups that support Derek Chauvin
All social media platforms are really good at censoring unpopular opinions.
By conceding people supporting Chauvin are being censored, you implicitly admit they exist.
Why don't you reply to my actual position? I believe there is systemic societal racism in this country. You, me and the police are all members of this society. It will take hard work to a) protect the subjects of societal racism from it; b) eliminate societal racism.
And I think that certain interest groups fan the flames of discord often to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Racism was at an all-time low in this country and these latest incarnations are only serving to destroy what progress was made. The metric for what qualifies as racist has a hair-trigger these days.
Translating your words: Things were much better before blacks got so uppity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-02-2020 3:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-03-2020 3:07 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 591 of 670 (882671)
10-04-2020 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 589 by Hyroglyphx
10-03-2020 2:47 PM


Re: racism in this country
Don't you remember your Who do you think I am? thread? Why are you doing this to yourself again?
Hyroglyphx writes:
i think those of us who are white should STFU and let's ask POC what they think. same with sexism.
Because people of color don't always agree with one another...
Of course POC don't always agree. There's never 100% unanimity about anything in any large group. But more than 80% of black Americans support BLM.
Because women don't always agree with one another...
Yet another bad example, you're on a roll. 60% of woman support abortion.
Because all people have the inherent right to express an opinion;
Why are you arguing against positions no one's advocating? You have racist views, and everyone supports your right to state and defend those views. But there is no cloak of immunity from criticism of those views.
I guess equality isn't your thing....
I guess accuracy, honesty and integrity isn't your thing.
You think self-subjugation, self-flagellation, self-effacement, and self-immolation is the only way to pay for the sins of the father and the father's father, the father's-father's-father, and so on.
It isn't possible to compensate past sufferers of racism. Ending racism would be the best compensation going forward, but that doesn't seem within the realm of possibility, so that leaves monetary and legal compensation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-03-2020 2:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-04-2020 2:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 592 of 670 (882672)
10-04-2020 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 590 by Hyroglyphx
10-03-2020 3:07 PM


Re: Protests
Hyroglyphx writes:
No, that would not be the second choice. Systemic racism is not "minorities...being systematically framed for crimes committed by white people." Just for a couple examples, "driving while black" and "hanging out while black" are not crimes committed by white people that blacks get arrested for.
Those aren't crimes at all. You actually have to have an arrestable offense to be arrested.
You're close. All that's needed is for a law enforcement officer to *claim* you committed an arrestable offense.
What you are referring to is pretext stops (cop using any offense to legitimize a stop so (s)he can look for something bigger).
Give them whatever name you like. As far as moving violations, all a law enforcement officer has to do is get behind a driver and wait for them to fail to stay precisely within their lane or change lanes without signaling or follow the car in front too closely or fail to signal a turn or fail to yield properly or have a partially obscured plate or any number of other things. Why do law enforcement officers carry out pretextual traffic stops disproportionally more often with black drivers than white?
If the stats are in relation to why there is a disparity in arrests among different racial groups then my framing of possible choices is entirely accurate.
Defining systemic racism as the arrest of blacks for crimes committed by whites is as entirely inaccurate as it ever was. Why are you arguing a lost cause? Statistics unambiguously show that blacks and latinos are pulled over disproportionally.
You are defending an argument not made. If the only arguments you can rebut are ones you make up yourself, why are even bothering? It isn't like what your'e doing isn't incredibly obvious.
You claimed vanishingly few police officers support Chauvin, emphasizing your pont by sarcastically saying that there must be around six in the whole country.
You seem to think that many officers defend Chauvin when they don't. Its a dishonest presentation.
You seem congenitally unable to respond to arguments actually made, instead putting easy to rebut arguments in people's mouths. In Message 530 you said:
You also have to understand the resentment that all police officers have for Derek Chauvin.
Later in Message 571 you said:
Really??? I’ve never met even one Chauvin apologist let alone heard of one. Are you referring to all of 6 people nationwide?
But support for Chauvin within law enforcement is greater than that.
So I pointed out that you are using extreme outliers to represent the middle when it isn't reflective.
The head of the Minneapolis police union is not an extreme outlier.
Its not that I'm defending positions not made, its that you shift the goalposts whenever you need to backtrack. You do it constantly.
You're becoming Trumpier and Trumpier, now accusing others of what you're doing yourself.
"Homologous unit"? Did you mean "homogenous unit?" At least that would make sense, even though it's just more deflection.
Homologous: "Corresponding or similar in position, value, structure, or function."
"Homologous" would apply when comparing two or more entities, e.g., "homologous units". With only a single entity you would use "homogenous", e.g., "homogenous unit."
And here's an article about Facebook removing groups supporting Chauvin: Inside Facebook Groups that Support Derek Chauvin
All social media platforms are really good at censoring unpopular opinions.
Actually, they're really bad at it. For instance, they're now censoring any expressions of hope that Trump does not recover from covid-19, but there was no censoring of death threats against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib?
By conceding people supporting Chauvin are being censored, you implicitly admit they exist.
Yes, there are Chauvin apologists....
Oh, of course, you said there were no Chauvin *supporters*, because they're actually *apologists*, which is completely different.
Statistically there all but would have to. I am saying that the number is nevertheless is an exceedingly small fraction when compared to the number of people who believed they witnessed a murder, as do I.
There is no evidence quantifying the degree of support for Chauvin amongst law enforcement, but I doubt it is a "small fraction." My guess would be that it's within the 10-30% range. Certainly your original claim that "all officers" resent Chauvin was incorrect.
And I think that certain interest groups fan the flames of discord often to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Racism was at an all-time low in this country and these latest incarnations are only serving to destroy what progress was made. The metric for what qualifies as racist has a hair-trigger these days.
Translating your words: Things were much better before blacks got so uppity.
No, apparently that is your internalized racism, Percy.
Once again you're accusing others of what you yourself are doing. Are you sure you're not a Trump supporter?
I said "interest groups," not racial groups. I'm referring to the corporate interests that are funding groups to make it appear as if it's some grassroots effort. It's a social engineering experiment. The purpose is to change the perception of America to such a degree that it politically and socially shifts towards the political left.
Trump likes conspiracy theories, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-03-2020 3:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by dwise1, posted 10-04-2020 12:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 596 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2020 5:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 595 of 670 (882695)
10-05-2020 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by Hyroglyphx
10-04-2020 2:23 PM


Re: racism in this country
Hyroglyphx writes:
Don't you remember your Who do you think I am? thread? Why are you doing this to yourself again?
What is this?
"This" is denying that you hold views you obviously hold.
80% of Black Americans support BLM
Polling a country as large in the US is bullshit artistry,...
You're ignorance of statistics remains appalling. Guess how many people you have to randomly poll in a population of a million to have 95% confidence in the result? The answer is around 2000 (I forget the exact number).
Now guess how many people you have to randomly poll in a population of a 325 million to have 95% confidence in the result? The answer, unintuitively to you, no doubt, is again around 2000.
The key requirement for this to be true is that sampling be random, but the important point is that the sample size does not need to increase with increasing size of the nation. As long as the "randomly" requirement is satisfied, it is no more difficult to poll Costa Rica (population 5 million) than France (population 67 million)
If black lives mattered the way they ought to then BLM would be protesting in the Southside of Chicago when record numbers of black Americans are killed in droves, not by white police officers, but by other black Americans.
Chicago's homicide problems are unrelated to law enforcement's victimization of the black community on a nationwide scale.
If you or anyone from BLM honestly thinks that white officers en masse are systematically trying to find ways to kill People of Color, then you are just as delusional as these Q-Anon morons.
You're confusing two completely different words, "systemic" and "systematic". Victimization of minorities in the US is due to *systemic racism*, not systematic racism.
Yet another bad example, you're on a roll. 60% of woman support abortion
Who mentioned anything about abortion besides you? I said that many women reject the term and ethos behind feminism.
Abortion rights is just the feminist issue I chose for illustration. A majority of women in the US support feminist positions on such issues as abortion rights, equal opportunity, violence agains women, etc.
Do you think that’s because they want to be subjugated by the patriarchy or do you think it’s because being a feminist is widely open to interpretation as to what that means?
To you feminism is ambiguous and open to interpretation?
You have racist views, and everyone supports your right to state and defend those views. But there is no cloak of immunity from criticism of those views.
Nice slander and character assassination. Name a SINGLE thing that I’ve ever stated that is racist.
Much of your writing related to race is racist, for instance, "The metric for what qualifies as racist has a hair-trigger these days," and further on in this post where you say, "Racism is alive because Democrats keep that shit on life support in exchange for votes."
It isn't possible to compensate past sufferers of racism. Ending racism would be the best compensation going forward, but that doesn't seem within the realm of possibility, so that leaves monetary and legal compensation.
Oh yeah, as we all know as soon as a lump sum is paid out that’ll be the end of it.
Of course monetary payments won't end racism. You just quoted me saying exactly that, that ending racism "doesn't seem within the realm of possibility."
Let me count the ways it will accomplish nothing.
It will compensate victims.
Racism is alive because Democrats keep that shit on life support in exchange for votes.
Calling attention to and advocating compensation for racism is what keeps it alive? You're really claiming that?
The Left has shackled and crippled the black man under the guise of being his friend, but they’re divisive snakes. Malcolm X was right about white liberals...
So it isn't racism that keeps the black man down but efforts to mitigate it?
It's pretty common for racists to deny they're racist. After all, that's what your hero does (yeah, we know, you also deny he's your hero).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-04-2020 2:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-06-2020 12:17 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 598 of 670 (882712)
10-06-2020 8:22 AM


Police Officer Murders Jonathan Price
Yesterday Wolfe City, Texas, police officer Shaun David Lucas, who is white, was arrested for the Saturday murder of Jonathan Price, who is black. Price had helped break up a domestic dispute which was largely over when officer Lucas arrived and tried to arrest Price. Price walked away. Lucas TASER'd him then fatally shot him with his service revolver.
This fits under the category of "doing good deeds while black." I'll venture a guess that Wolfe City will pay out about $5 million. Lucas's arrest so soon after the murder argues that a murder conviction is perhaps possible, a great rarity.
Lucas is not a bad apple. He's a typical police officer with the same racial attitudes as much of the country, ones that cause people to dehumanize minorities thereby enabling and justifying their inhumane treatment.
Source: Page Not Found: 404 Not Found - CBS DFW
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 611 of 670 (884272)
02-03-2021 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2020 5:19 PM


Re: Protests
Hyroglyphx writes:
You're close. All that's needed is for a law enforcement officer to *claim* you committed an arrestable offense.
A probable cause affidavit has to be presented to a magistrate and (s)he either finds probable cause or does not. That statement is given under oath and if found to be perjuring oneself results in a Brady Letter which is pretty much is a death sentence for a law enforcement officer. With all interactions being recorded on body cam and an in-car camera system means that lying about something is that much more harder to do.
There's no magistrate around when a cop makes an arrest. You're referring to what happens later after the arrest. Cops lie all the time about what why they made an arrest. We always knew this, but just as you say, increasingly there is video evidence proving they lied.
Give them whatever name you like. As far as moving violations, all a law enforcement officer has to do is get behind a driver and wait for them to fail to stay precisely within their lane or change lanes without signaling or follow the car in front too closely or fail to signal a turn or fail to yield properly or have a partially obscured plate or any number of other things. Why do law enforcement officers carry out pretextual traffic stops disproportionally more often with black drivers than white?
Probably because crime rates statistically tend to be higher in black neighborhoods which results in a higher amount of police saturation. The higher the police presence in a specific area results in more interaction with the community being policed.
You're just making excuses for police preying on the communities they're pledged to protect.
Defining systemic racism as the arrest of blacks for crimes committed by whites is as entirely inaccurate as it ever was. Why are you arguing a lost cause? Statistics unambiguously show that blacks and latinos are pulled over disproportionally.
That's not necessarily indicative of racism.
You've become an apologist for racism.
One of the issues with some of the arguments posed by BLM is that most often fails to address is that black perpetrators disproportionately effect black victims. Statistically that is absolutely corroborated from city to city. So for however much you may think police are hurting black people they assist black communities three times as much. Why isn't that discussed? Ah, because it doesn't neatly fit into the narrative.
It certainly doesn't fit *your* narrative. If black communities are so well protected and made so much safer by the police, why are they fearful of them? Why do police arrest blacks and murder blacks at a far higher rate than whites? No need to reply, we already know you believe its their own fault for getting arrested and murdered so much.
Poverty and crime have a strong correlation. We could argue on if its a chicken and egg problem, but that much should be agreed upon given the stats that overwhelmingly support the conclusion.
You finally got something right, but you left out that poverty and crime go together regardless of race. Probably the best way to reduce crime is to address poverty, but conservatives tend to see it all as more of a law enforcement issue.
The head of the Minneapolis police union is not an extreme outlier.
Yes, he is!
You're paralleling Christian arguments about true Christians. You'd consider the head of the Minneapolis police union to be a true representative of a fine police force except he's expressed support for the wrong person, so you instead claim he's not truly representative.
Your judgment is based not upon any objective criteria but upon falsely claiming that anyone who's done bad or supports anyone who's done bad are themselves bad. The truth is that these are all just human beings behaving like human beings always behave. The fault lies not with themselves but with the system that they're forced to exist within. Giving fallible human beings a license to assault with impunity (which Chauvin apparently did and got away with for years) and even worse guns is a prescription for disaster that we see playing out every day.
All social media platforms are de-platforming users that expressly convey violence as it is a direct violation of their terms and conditions.
If you're talking Facebook and Twitter then you're probably right about their terms and conditions, but enforcement is extremely lax, though it improved after the January 6th insurrection.
You know as well as I do that ALL social media platforms are run by and operated by left-leaning people.
Like comment threads at Fox News? Like Parler? Gab? Rumble? Probably not a good idea to use the word "all" in reference to most things.
Oh, of course, you said there were no Chauvin *supporters*, because they're actually *apologists*, which is completely different.
Completely different?!?!
apologist ’-pl’-jst
n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
n. One who speaks or writes in defense of anything; one who champions a person or a cause, whether in public address or by literary means; one who makes an apology or defense.
supporter s’-prt’r
n. One that supports, as a structural member of a building.
n. One who promotes or advocates; an adherent.
You're arguing semantics here...
No, arguing semantics is what *you're* doing. You're arguing that Chauvin doesn't have supporters but apologists, as if they're completely different things when they're not. You're arguing labels when the true point is that there are obviously those sympathetic to Chauvin out there, and calling them apologists instead of sympathizers doesn't change that.
The Chauvin example is an illustration of the fact that a good percentage of the police are supporters of violence and harsh methods. You're a good example. You defend police violence and harsh methods all the time, right up until something is indefensible in your view, and then to you they're just bad apples and not examples of a systemic problem.
In light of some recent revelations I think the numbers are starting to get higher in terms of exonerating him... which would be catastrophic. So while I would agree that they are marginally higher than before that the overwhelming consensus is that what Chauvin did to that man was absolutely disgusting.
What Chauvin did is merely a more extreme expression of standard police culture. How many times in this thread have you defended harsh police responses because of the danger and unknowns that they face? Chauvin is one of the few times, and only time I can think of right now, that you haven't defended some terrible police action. Only when some police malfeasance is too horrible to defend do you deny them and say they're just one of the few bad apples and the rest of the police are fine.
Trump likes conspiracy theories, too.
Don't be naive, there is open monetary support from very large corporations. Think of the logistics necessary for Antifa and BLM to night after night after night attack cities like Portland and Seattle for months and months and months.... You really think that can be sustainable and hold down a job? Not on your life. This is being funded surreptitiously by deep pockets.
Demand Protest - We Assemble Movements
https://crowdsondemand.com/
Marjorie Taylor Greene likes conspiracy theories, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2020 5:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 612 of 670 (884274)
02-03-2021 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by Hyroglyphx
10-06-2020 12:17 AM


Re: racism in this country
"This" is denying that you hold views you obviously hold.
By virtue of contrast and comparison, if the only way one can prove their non-racism is only through extreme patronage and self-effacement as their only hope for salvation, then of course I am going to look like David Duke. The bar for what constitutes racism in today's cancel culture is so low that everything qualifies as such. That's your failing, not mine.
If you truly don't want to be labeled a racist (and only the most extreme racists accept the label) then I suggest you stop displaying racist attitudes.
You're ignorance of statistics remains appalling. Guess how many people you have to randomly poll in a population of a million to have 95% confidence in the result? The answer is around 2000 (I forget the exact number).
Now guess how many people you have to randomly poll in a population of a 325 million to have 95% confidence in the result? The answer, unintuitively to you, no doubt, is again around 2000.
Haha, then I guess that 5% non-confidence for Trump beating Hilary Clinton was quite the anomaly.
You still misunderstand. Let me explain it another way. The confidence level of a poll is a function of sample size and not population size. If you want a confidence level of 95% then your sample size should be around 2000. It doesn't matter if the population size is a million or a billion, you still only need a sample size of roughly 2000 to have 95% confidence in the result. The sample must be truly random, though.
Polls in the US cannot be trusted because the results themselves have a tendency to manufacture desired results.
You're making this up. This is not a cause of poll inaccuracy. Most inaccuracy is due to the difficulty of attaining a truly random sample. Another source of inaccuracy is people's response not matching their eventual vote.
Sample size.
You're just making it more clear that you don't understand statistics. See above.
Sample population.
You're thinking in the right direction. What you're trying to say is that poll accuracy depends upon how truly random the sample is, which I mentioned above.
How the poll questions are phrased.
How the question of how one might is phrased wouldn't normally be a factor because it's a very straightforward question, for example: "If the election were held today, how would you vote ?"
But prior questions can influence answers to later questions. For example, if there had been an earlier question something like, "Do you approve of Hilary Clinton eating babies?" then that could influence respondents' answer to the subsequent voting question.
All of that factors in. And what difference does it make or should it make to YOU what someone else thinks?
You're responding to something never said or implied, reflecting confusion on your part. My message explained how you were misunderstanding statistics, and all you've done is make even more clear how poor your understanding is.
You never say why you included a YouTube video so I didn't watch it, but I did notice that you used raw HTML code. Did you know EvC Forum has a YouTube code? Just take the URL and plug it in to the code like this:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/embed/If9EWDB_zK4]
Chicago's homicide problems are unrelated to law enforcement's victimization of the black community on a nationwide scale.
Yeah, exactly! And guess who kills far and away more black people... white police officers or other black people? If BLM was an honest organization then black lives would matter 100% of the time. Obfuscate all you'd like... the facts speak for themselves.
The same illogic that led you to say this will still be in operation when you attempt to understand my response, but anyway, first you're committing a simple number fallacy. There are only around a million full time law enforcement officers nationwide but over 40 million blacks. Given that there are at least 40 times more blacks than law enforcement officers, of course there are going to more black-on-black murders than cop-on-black murders.
Second, they're still two independent things. The number of murders of blacks committed by blacks is independent of murders committed by cops. You're implying a relationship or interdependence that doesn't exist.
Maybe you shouldn't be discussing issues that have a math or logic component.
Much of your writing related to race is racist, for instance, "The metric for what qualifies as racist has a hair-trigger these days," and further on in this post where you say, "Racism is alive because Democrats keep that shit on life support in exchange for votes."
LOL, yeah, and??? How does that equal me thinking one race is inherently superior to another?
I never said anything like that. I think it's your dehumanization of blacks that makes you racist more than anything else.
Of course monetary payments won't end racism. You just quoted me saying exactly that, that ending racism "doesn't seem within the realm of possibility."
You also said its a good start, so how will it be a good start?
Huh? I don't recall saying that, and doing a search on the thread I see that the only person who used the term "good start" in this thread is you. Quote me saying whatever it is you're thinking of and I'll try to respond.
Calling attention to and advocating compensation for racism is what keeps it alive? You're really claiming that?
YES! For a group that talks so much about equality, the Democrat Party highlights racial division in order to keep people angry. They want to portray themselves as the savior of black people when in reality they have consistently failed the black man for 50 fucking years! Every single Democrat run shit hole has buried the black man even further when he cries out for true liberation.
This should be Exhibit A that you're a racist.
So it isn't racism that keeps the black man down but efforts to mitigate it?
But you aren't helping it, you keep it alive by stoking flames.
That you believe racism would go away if we'd just stop talking about it is Exhibit B that you're a racist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-06-2020 12:17 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 613 of 670 (884293)
02-07-2021 10:16 AM


Do Not "Defund the Police"
"Defund the Police" is the wrong phrase. It does not mean what people claim they mean when they use it. The phrase is an effective attention getting device that should be abandoned.
I don't have a suggestion for a better phrase that is attention getting and means the same thing as what people think needs to be done.
What needs to be done is to reassign a number of police responsibilities to other city departments so that police can focus on their primary responsibility. The police are terrible at their secondary responsibilities, such as wellness checks and domestic disputes. These responsibilities would be better served as part of other city departments.
The $20 million suit the family filed against the city of Pasadena in the police killing of actress Vanessa Marquez was settled this week on February 2, 2021, for $450,000. This article does not say why the family settled for so little (ER Actress Vanessa Marquez Police Shooting | Settlement Reached | The South Pasadenan | South Pasadena News), but this killing is a prime example of why police should not be carrying out wellness checks.
A similar example, though not with a mortal outcome, occurred recently in Rochester NY, when a nine-year-old girl was pepper sprayed and handcuffed while her mother pleaded for the police to call mental health services and the police said no (Mother of 9-year-old Rochester, N.Y. girl said police rebuffed her pleas for mental health help for her daughter. The family plans to file a lawsuit.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 614 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2021 11:09 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 615 of 670 (884301)
02-08-2021 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by NosyNed
02-07-2021 11:09 AM


Re: Focus the Police
Combining brevity and clarity is not easy. I don't know how to say in three or four words that police shouldn't have guns, shouldn't be in school hallways, be on routine traffic control duty, patrol our roads, conduct wellness checks, be involved in mental health situations, investigate traffic accidents, etc. The best I can come up with might be something like, "Free the police to do law enforcement."
One can see all these responsibilities remaining under one roof. Naturally one of the groups under this roof would be law enforcement and a SWAT team, but other separate groups would be traffic control, accident investigations, school safety, medical emergencies, traffic accidents (EMT's, etc., who would have their own traffic control unit), mental health and domestic disputes (should be same department as social workers), disaster relief, drug control, cyber crimes, etc. There are so many ways so many units could be organized. But right now a policeman is responsible for all of it and might be called upon to do any one of these things, and that's absurd.
You can see this absurdity first hand in my own town. The person responsible for handling cyber crimes is a police officer who wears a uniform, carries a gun, sits in front of a computer all day, but might be called upon at any moment to deal with any of these other things I mentioned above.
We already recognize that policemen and firemen have completely different responsibilities and should be in different departments, that one's obvious, but we have yet to recognize that, for example, handling a domestic dispute or conducting a wellness check or handing out traffic tickets all have almost nothing to do with fighting crime, and that when you send armed officers, prepared when necessary to respond violently, to handle these other situations that there will be a constant supply of bad outcomes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2021 11:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 616 of 670 (884855)
03-10-2021 5:22 PM


Still No Government Investigative Report on London Bridge Attack
I checked again today for the governmental investigative report on the November 29, 2019, London Bridge attack and still can't find one.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024